The Night4Maxis project... dusk and dawn for Bat4max buildings

[Spamoidutout 124]

6 hours ago, T Wrecks said:

Yes, vanilla buildings adapt themselves. However, in the earlier days of BAT4max, several BATs were produced that contained a full night render just like the DarkNite BATs you are editing here, but at colours that match Maxis night. So it's basically the same scheme as DarkNite, only brighter. While the buildings look fine if you switch to static Maxis night, they cannot use the dusk/dawn cycle.

But... I'm reworking standard maxisnite renders (except for a few exceptions). 

Yes, I have seen these early "non standard sc4bat" renders that came out before the maxisnite/darknite separation and bat4max.

ALL bat4max (or these too) renders do not adapt to the day/night cycle and use a full night render, maxisnite and darknite.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

All BATs that are rendered from 3ds Max use BAT4Max. The original BAT4Max duplicated Gmax's lighting rig, and duplicated the night exports. Then people started fiddling with the lighting rig and rendering settings, to get raytraced lighting (for examples, my BATs "The Olde Building" to "Brei Market & Happy Camera" were done this way). Then SimFox invented TruNite, which we did manually ("AD Rean Branch Library" to "211 West Fort Street"). Later, SimFox updated BAT4Max to Version 5, to standardize and automate all of this stuff plus a ton of quality of life improvements.

TruNite is the export method which breaks the day/night cycle by using full alpha masks for night renders. MaxisNite and DarkNite are color variations of TruNite.

The night export method that the original buildings in the game, gmax buildings, and early BAT4Max buildings use, doesn't have a name. I think when people talk about it, they use words like "traditional" "gmax" "old" "original" "vanilla". idk if we should give it a name and call it VanillaNite or DefaultNite something to make it more clear what it is.

You're not converting things TO MaxisNite, you're converting things AWAY from MaxisNite.

[Spamoidutout 124]

1 hour ago, Jasoncw said:

You're not converting things TO MaxisNite, you're converting things AWAY from MaxisNite.

Hehe, that's not wrong in a sense.

But I wasn't saying I was converting to maxisnite, I was saying I was reworking maxisnite renders.

 

Anyway...

I've been quite busy. I said I would do one or two more but I did a bit more... like twenty  more. And I'm glad I did because I saw a few more obstacles to overcome or errors to avoid.

I'll take some time to make vids for the new ones (and I will need to rework some of the first I did in the beginning so they're "perfect").

[violins77 4]

Hi there! Any updates on this? I downloaded a bunch of buildings recently, and I quickly noticed the night render issue. I'm surprised that the BAT4MAX method of export became the new standard. The effect of the night render really looks off during dusk or dawn, but then again, it's probably a compromise between that and using old tools.

 

Anyways, if you still need help for the scripting part, I can take care of that!

[Spamoidutout 124]

Hi, folks.
Been completely off for a few months, new job, new appartment, this stopped me right in my tracks for a while.
And then had to reinstall my whole  machine and backup all my files in an emergency. Some landed in different harddrives and it was a complete mess.
I've started having time to look at this a couple of weeks ago and finally managed to regroup my wip files just a few days ago.

 

Now... where am I? As I didn't have the time to take note of everything, I have to rediscover parts of my own process, but I think I went the wrong way to streamline it and make it less time consuming.

I think the part where I regroup all the tiles that form the complete textures is unneccessary.

I saw @rivit made a lot of additions to his GoFSH tool. The proofsheet function he added will be extra useful 

 

I see two ways it could be done much faster.
 

1 - Having a tool like the GoFSH proofsheet addition but for all zoom levels, and also (and I don't think this exists at all) a tool that would recut the whole textures back to tiles and rename them correctly and automatically (it's still the worst part of the process, it's hard and long to do manually).

2 - Using the proofsheet to find the correct settings for the photoshop actions, and then batch-treat all the tiles separately, without having to recompose or rename anything.
Problem is I don't know how to do this with photoshop. Batch treating simple files is ok, but you have to work with separate layers to obtain the alpha and I don't know how to script this.

 

Edit: the only viable solution is the first one.

Why? Because while doing some of the buildings I already did I noticed some of them had the night render slightly offset (the result would be sligthly blurry in some parts if left uncorrected) this need fixing as a whole in photoshop and would be extremely difficult to do if processing all the tiles separately.

 

So... I need some help to make the renaming of the tiles easier.

@rivit , is there a way this could be done using GoFISH?

Or maybe @violins77 (if you're still around and your help proposal still holds), because that part does not need to be visual.

[Spamoidutout 124]

News! Well just short news.

I've now worked on almost 50 buildings.

I've reworked some buildings from the Trunite period and they work as fine as the others.

Oh, and btw, about DarkNite... I think I've been asked if what I do makes it possible to use Trunite or MaxisNite only buildings with the Darknite mod. The answer is yes, they look great when used with DN.

Here's @Jasoncw's Ouellettte Electronics, a Trunite Building, now usable with the DarkNite mod:

Here's how it looked before  

 

 

[Photovoltaic Array 97]

I'm honestly really intrigued by this project. How is it going?

I legitimately like both MaxisNite and DarkNite -- both are beautiful in their own ways. That said I'm currently working in a MN city and I'm interested in your method given how the samples look, especially since in my own experience I think some BATs out there, beautiful as they are, were clearly tailor-made for DN by far. Beyond that I'm also legitimately interested in how you can just switch outright to DN anyway using your method if one really wanted to do so and they look excellent in there as well.

If nothing else I feel it would be good to have excellent MN and DN versions off the bat and you do MN versions of recent stuff really well.

[Spamoidutout 124]

Mayhem Plaza and Neihu Plaza, now 100% operational.
Just a reminder about these buildings, the Maxis versions of both were broken (they contained both MN and DN renders, and DN renders were showing at night... so no actual MN version for them.).

These two and a dozen more are almost ready to be released... but still I'm not sure how I should release stuff.
It's not really building, but in some cases it's a fix (like the example above).
In other cases it's added functionality.

What is it??? 

[Photovoltaic Array 97]

These both look really cool! I hope to see them released soon!

I guess if you're worried, start with asking the people whose buildings you're currently modifying and see if they're ok with it. I really don't see anything necessarily wrong with that, and if they say no, move on I suppose. But given how you're not taking anything away from them, I don't see the problem myself.

For older stuff with BATters no longer active here, I guess ask @CorinaMarie what Simtropolis policies are, but I've seen some people modify and update really old BATs.

[CorinaMarie 29,894]

13 minutes ago, Photovoltaic Array said:

For older stuff with BATters no longer active here, I guess ask @CorinaMarie what Simtropolis policies are, but I've seen some people modify and update really old BATs.

/me hears her name called and peeks inside.

Can you give me a synopsis of what might need a policy decision? I don't follow threads over here in the Builder's Forum.

[Photovoltaic Array 97]

@CorinaMarie

@Spamoidutout has been modifying existing BATs to better exist with MaxisNite, as per his OP. He's worried about getting the permissions involved -- while for currently active BATters it makes sense to ask them directly about potential (re)releases involving their work, the thing in specific I was wondering about for him was regarding editing the older work of BATters who are no longer seriously active here.

I could have sworn there was a policy of sorts that if they haven't been active for a good long time (a year or so? more?) it's fair game to edit it with proper credit attributed, but I don't know for sure and knew you would.

[CorinaMarie 29,894]

4 minutes ago, Photovoltaic Array said:

I could have sworn there was a policy of sorts that if they haven't been active for a good long time (a year or so? more?) it's fair game to edit it with proper credit attributed, but I don't know for sure and knew you would.

Ah. We don't really have a written rule on that as many BAT related things have been considered a customary courtesy for obtaining permission. It certainly makes sense that there should be a time frame in which we could make a decision to allow updating older, abandoned content.  @Cyclone Boom and I have discussed several options with regard to creating official rules for modifying content, but it takes time and there's been other more fun things we've spent our spare moments doing. For any given item, we could make a decision on a case by case basis. We do plan to get back to this eventually.

[xxdita 1,097]

I think it's a fine line. Some creators will be flattered, while others offended if they ever find out. They'd have to come back to find out either way and maybe it will inspire them to return to creating custom content, so I'm all for it. There's certainly no malice behind the project. 

That said, any updated content should absolutely give proper credit to the original creator. And if someone does come back and have an issue with the updates, they can always be taken down with a simple request to the staff. 

[rsc204 21,866]

8 hours ago, xxdita said:

That said, any updated content should absolutely give proper credit to the original creator. And if someone does come back and have an issue with the updates, they can always be taken down with a simple request to the staff. 

For me, this is probably the most workable solution to provide a balance between allowing progress and keeping creators rights. If explicit permission were needed, then you can practically forget any of this being possible.

I would add too, that as a creator, you don't have to like someone's modification to your work for it to be valid. I do find it sad when people starting acting like they are Da Vinci or something and that their "art" is so perfect, no one could objectionably alter it in a way someone might think was better.

[mattb325 28,891]

@Spamoidutout, it has been a while since I checked in here, and it looks like you've made some progress.

I was working with @rivit (by 'working', I mean providing requested renders and boring him with my artistic process for getting bats and textures to blend with Maxis' palette; rivit was actually doing most of the work) who was doing something similar. May I suggest that you re-open dialogue with him if you wish to progress this further?

Where we left off, he was working towards making the process somewhat automated. From my point of view, this is a preferable incursion upon content creators' models as it is a given set of almost static unchanging values overlaid on an existing bat to make it compatible with day/night. There was less 'tweaking' results to make it look right in the final instances. In other words, it appeared to be a more objective, mathematical change rather than something that could be more subjective (even though your process is grounded in the maths of RGB values and their shift from one night mode to the other).

9 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I do find it sad when people starting acting like they are Da Vinci or something and that their "art" is so perfect, no one could objectionably alter it in a way someone might think was better.

@rsc204, pointed remarks from a staff member will serve only to drive a wedge between content creators who have uploaded content in good faith over the last 15 years knowing that the model files would not be altered and the good work of Spamoidutout and rivit. No one in this thread has even crossed that point, so why try to turn it into this topic? I suggest you refrain from inflammatory comments: they will get us nowhere.

@CorinaMarie and @Cyclone Boom, perhaps when a decision is made,  if it is one that allows this sort of alteration for inactive batter's work, that in addition to crediting the author, it is in fact uploaded under his/her moniker?

Lastly from my point of view, if this change is allowed, that only the nite .fsh files are released, so that the actual original model remains a crucial dependency and cannot be substituted by the newer, altered Maxis/Tru- nite versions.

[xxdita 1,097]

4 hours ago, mattb325 said:

 

@CorinaMarie and @Cyclone Boom, perhaps when a decision is made,  if it is one that allows this sort of alteration for inactive batter's work, that in addition to crediting the author, it is in fact uploaded under his/her moniker?

Lastly from my point of view, if this change is allowed, that only the nite .fsh files are released, so that the actual original model remains a crucial dependency and cannot be substituted by the newer, altered Maxis/Tru- nite versions.

That actually seems more respectful to the original creators, but on a technical level, is it possible? Would the new nite.fsh files consistently override existing ones already in use, if loaded afterwards. say in a z_Nite folder? If so, then this definitely seems like the way to go, staying in line with dependency standards set long ago. 

This would allow the original lots and desc files to be used, instead of creating new ones, so it may wind up being easier for Spamoidutout, while still providing the desired updates for the end users. Or would the original lots be used anyway, so end users would still need to seek out the original upload? 

[CorinaMarie 29,894]

I'll start with letting everyone know we haven't officially decided anything yet.

We believe the key part of any decision of this nature has to be what'll be best for the SimCity 4 community as a whole. That'll be all the peeps here at ST, at Devotion, and any other active site whether they are members or guests. I remember @Tarkus wrote a very nice blog entry a long while back in which he suggested we really need to come to terms with how to both preserve content and continue to keep the game fun and exciting such that new and old members remain active. It's prolly a good time to figure out how best to handle older content from inactive members.

With all the new tools available there are things which can be done now that weren't possible in years past. It does seem that updating older items is a good way to revive the older BATs which will help keep the game fresh.

Ofc, we understand how this can be a sensitive issue. Our goal is to balance what is good for the majority who seek content for their game and the customary rights of the creators. One idea we've discussed specifically is that current, active creators could choose from a tailored list of policies which would apply to their own uploaded content. It could be added as a message banner atop their files on the STEX. This would be where one could say anything outside of the already accepted practices such as re-lotting and other types of overrides are allowed in a certain way or require permission or are prohibited entirely. (That part still needs considerable thought to even see what might be acceptable.)

We believe the current topic relates mostly to modification of content from members who are not active. A one year time frame seems like a reasonable period after which we admins could become the caretakers for decisions regarding said content. And even this isn't an official decision, but just another idea being considered.

Now to this part specifically:

5 hours ago, mattb325 said:

@CorinaMarie  and @Cyclone Boom, perhaps when a decision is made,  if it is one that allows this sort of alteration for inactive batter's work, that in addition to crediting the author, it is in fact uploaded under his/her moniker?

Lastly from my point of view, if this change is allowed, that only the nite .fsh files are released, so that the actual original model remains a crucial dependency and cannot be substituted by the newer, altered Maxis/Tru- nite versions.

These seem like they'd be two separate scenarios. Yes?

First is credit to the original author and for the upload to be placed under the original account. That seems reasonable and, perhaps, the rule could be such that whoever modifies it has it under their own name for a period of time in which they would receive any reputation points as a small token of appreciation for the time and effort they devoted.

The second part seems like it would always be an override requiring the original as a dependency and therefore the new creation would prolly stay under the new creator's account just like a re-lot would.

-Cori and CB

[xxdita 1,097]

As a LEX Admin, I need to understand the technical aspects a bit better before being able to give an informed opinion on any decision made at SC4D, if it even comes up over there. All I can go by is how we've done things in the past, and not many  BATs have ever been updated by anyone aside from the original creators.

If we're comparing updated night lighting with a relot, then using the original SC4Model as a dependency makes the most sense to me. But that only seems possible if the new nite.fsh files properly override existing ones. If this is indeed the case, then the new nite.fsh files should be credited to the person making them and stay in their name, as the original file would be necessary for it to be useful in any way, whereas the original BAT will still work as it always has. 

That said, some BATters have made their thoughts and feelings known about such changes to their buildings in the EULAs included with their downloads. So that should be taken into account when any decision is made. 

 

 

[mattb325 28,891]

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

These seem like they'd be two separate scenarios. Yes?

First is credit to the original author and for the upload to be placed under the original account. That seems reasonable and, perhaps, the rule could be such that whoever modifies it has it under their own name for a period of time in which they would receive any reputation points as a small token of appreciation for the time and effort they devoted.

The second part seems like it would always be an override requiring the original as a dependency and therefore the new creation would prolly stay under the new creator's account just like a re-lot would.

Yes, I put these forward as two possible solutions to the issue, knowing that you both haven't made any decision yet.

They can be either/or solutions to work with a variety of scenarios for inactive creators. Some creators like Heblem, (who has had his MMP models altered and re-released by others) actually have an EULA that says the work cannot be altered: he is also basically inactive, and I believe he has some bats executed in 3dsMax that may fall under this dark-nite & Maxis nite discussion.

2 hours ago, xxdita said:

That actually seems more respectful to the original creators, but on a technical level, is it possible? Would the new nite.fsh files consistently override existing ones already in use, if loaded afterwards. say in a z_Nite folder? If so, then this definitely seems like the way to go, staying in line with dependency standards set long ago. 

I believe it is possible, but would require some testing first and foremost.

For the record, as I said to spamoidutout on page 1 and as I have said to rivit, I like the dusk/dawn cycle and while I am grateful that the current bat4max render gives us batters wonderful possibilities for creating sharp, crisp renders, I do believe that forgoing dawn and dusk is a shame.

[xxdita 1,097]

To get ahead of the topic, would the same technique be possible to give buildings Dark Nite lighting? 

[Spamoidutout 124]

I feel like @rivit's point of view on this and mine are not the same... and I hope he didn't take it badly when I said I didn't believe his method would give the same results as mine.

What I do requests actions that can only be performed in photoshop (for now).

@xxdita, once a building is adapted using my method, it will work with darknite, maxisnite, every imaginable light plugin. It's now reacting like maxis created buildings do. I've made tests and I can see no noticable difference between a darknite render and a building I modified when people use the DN mod. It also allows DN users to use the night day cycle and have nice looking dusk and dawn time.

It could also allow builders to only render DN (because you can get better results when using a DN render to work, it allows better contrasts over the day render).

I will always release as additional .dat files requiring the original sc4model files. And of course always credit the authors.
I made my files as zzzzzz "insert name of the building" and placed them alongside the sc4model files, it works flawlessly. SC4 loads the original and then overrides the night renders using my files.

 

I will ask permission to active and non active builders.
Yes will mean yes (duh)
No will mean I will keep my files private and that's sad...
No reply will mean I will release the files but if the original author finally says no I might someday have to remove them.

I will ask said permission HERE, meaning the authors will have to come here and see what it's about instead of just seeing a message and maybe not paying attention and (maybe) just dismiss it not really knowing what it's about.

Does it seem ok to everyone? 

[rsc204 21,866]

44 minutes ago, Spamoidutout said:

I feel like @rivit's point of view on this and mine are not the same... and I hope he didn't take it badly when I said I didn't believe his method would give the same results as mine.

Having worked using the GoFSH method, I'm inclined to agree. Whether it's because of a different set of changes or simply the difference between automation and a more manual process, if you prefer your results, there's nothing negative in that.

For example, whilst I can see me running the GoFSH method on my own models, I certainly wouldn't want to get too into this time-wise. I prefer the dusk/sunrise cycle and have accepted it's absence because of the quality of BAT4Max renders is superior. Certainly by using GoFSH it's a very quick method to process a bunch of BATs. I was personally pretty happy with the end results too. The time needed to export the FSH, convert them, batch process and re-pack them again as FSH would be longer. I'm also not sure my models are of such high quality/detail as to justify doing the extra work.

But having more than one method is no bad thing, especially if you can offer the PS Actions necessary. It will allow those modellers who wish to work with whichever method they preferred. I know for example, GIMP does support scripting/automation, but so far as I know, there is no simple way to convert/use a PS Action in GIMP. Given not everyone has Photoshop, having the option in GoFSH will I'm sure be very useful.

Ultimately, however these changes are achieved, I know that myself and likely many others, would be only too glad to have more options that fit better with our personal setups. As always, it's possible for every individual to repeat the same steps to achieve that individually. I've always felt though this is stupid, we have the can't mod/won't mod crowd, which I'm sure are a very high proportion of users. By allowing those willing to do the work to release such modifications, everyone can take advantage of their work. Obviously allowing such things is fairly new territory and I personally have no direct say in that decision. However I do hope that you and potentially others, will be allowed to capitalise on your findings/work here.

[xxdita 1,097]

2 hours ago, Spamoidutout said:

I feel like @rivit's point of view on this and mine are not the same... and I hope he didn't take it badly when I said I didn't believe his method would give the same results as mine.

What I do requests actions that can only be performed in photoshop (for now).

@xxdita, once a building is adapted using my method, it will work with darknite, maxisnite, every imaginable light plugin. It's now reacting like maxis created buildings do. I've made tests and I can see no noticable difference between a darknite render and a building I modified when people use the DN mod. It also allows DN users to use the night day cycle and have nice looking dusk and dawn time.

It could also allow builders to only render DN (because you can get better results when using a DN render to work, it allows better contrasts over the day render).

I will always release as additional .dat files requiring the original sc4model files. And of course always credit the authors.
I made my files as zzzzzz "insert name of the building" and placed them alongside the sc4model files, it works flawlessly. SC4 loads the original and then overrides the night renders using my files.

 

I will ask permission to active and non active builders.
Yes will mean yes (duh)
No will mean I will keep my files private and that's sad...
No reply will mean I will release the files but if the original author finally says no I might someday have to remove them.

I will ask said permission HERE, meaning the authors will be have to come here and see what it's about instead of just seeing a message and maybe not paying attention and (maybe) just dismiss it not really knowing what it's about.

Does it seem ok to everyone? 

This seems like the best way possible to me. 

There have been very few MODs that have come along that require a major overhaul of existing CC, and I doubt we'll see many more at this stage of the game. 

I applaud your effort to take on such a project and wish you the best of luck. 

[matias93 7,535]

On 12/5/2019 at 4:10 PM, mattb325 said:

if it is one that allows this sort of alteration for inactive batter's work, that in addition to crediting the author, it is in fact uploaded under his/her moniker?

Lastly from my point of view, if this change is allowed, that only the nite .fsh files are released, so that the actual original model remains a crucial dependency and cannot be substituted by the newer, altered Maxis/Tru- nite versions.

just brainstorming here, but what about including the new FSHs on the same file entry, as an extra download? The current site software allows for it and would allow for distinguishing between the original work and the further modifications, without demanding from the end users to find and pair two separate files (or many more, if we consider dependencies and potential FSHs of dependencies).

 

[xxdita 1,097]

23 minutes ago, matias93 said:

just brainstorming here, but what about including the new FSHs on the same file entry, as an extra download? The current site software allows for it and would allow for distinguishing between the original work and the further modifications, without demanding from the end users to find and pair two separate files (or many more, if we consider dependencies and potential FSHs of dependencies).

This would be great, except that it really only works if your target audience actually reads before downloading and installing things. Hint: we don't, until we absolutely have to. 

Plus new uploads are just sexier than updated ones, which may not actually be seen unless you're doing a very specific search. 

[rsc204 21,866]

13 hours ago, xxdita said:

Hint: we don't, until we absolutely have to.

Yeah that's so true!

14 hours ago, matias93 said:

without demanding from the end users to find and pair two separate files (or many more, if we consider dependencies and potential FSHs of dependencies)

I think if we tried to keep them all in one place, we'd get a nice balance between the two suggestions. Consider that if this sort of modification were something you were interested in, you'd probably want to do it for as many of your models as possible. Whereas others may simply want to try them out or not care at all. If we had a thread somewhere listing all such mods, that could link to the relevant downloads for those that need them. Then it's just about awareness, which really is something all modders have to contend with.

One more thing on this process, when I was testing out the GoFSH method, I always DAT-Packed the new FSH into the original file, to remove duplicate textures. I agree it's best to ensure any such releases require the original models to function, so I'm not talking about releasing them that way. But, it would be a good idea to mention this somewhere, since BATs and their textures can get quite large in terms of filesize. So as the number of options increases, you'd otherwise end up with a lot of redundant overrides.

[xxdita 1,097]

8 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Yeah that's so true!

I think if we tried to keep them all in one place, we'd get a nice balance between the two suggestions. Consider that if this sort of modification were something you were interested in, you'd probably want to do it for as many of your models as possible. Whereas others may simply want to try them out or not care at all. If we had a thread somewhere listing all such mods, that could link to the relevant downloads for those that need them. Then it's just about awareness, which really is something all modders have to contend with.

One more thing on this process, when I was testing out the GoFSH method, I always DAT-Packed the new FSH into the original file, to remove duplicate textures. I agree it's best to ensure any such releases require the original models to function, so I'm not talking about releasing them that way. But, it would be a good idea to mention this somewhere, since BATs and their textures can get quite large in terms of filesize. So as the number of options increases, you'd otherwise end up with a lot of redundant overrides.

And overrides that don't even work if you don't have the updates loading after the models themselves, so naming convention is important. 

You could include a Cleanitol file, to locate the original models and remove them from the Plugins folder. Users would then need to move them to a new folder to be DatPacked, then move both files out of Plugins again. And since I didn't just read half of what I typed, I now have vampire buildings that can't be seen in daylight. 

[matias93 7,535]

Then it would be better to insist on using the DATpacker when applying those overrides, and to install them on the same folder as the original building is (potentially an issue for less organised plugin hoarders, like me)