Jump to content

andisart

Member
  • Content Count

    1,712
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    5

About andisart

  • Rank
    Squadron Leader

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin

Recent Profile Visitors

578,075 Profile Views
  1. Aarsgevogelte BAT's

    Wow you're so quick spilling out amazing BATs! Afraid you need to rerender and I think you should, current version looks wrong with the colors. How did you set up the lighting in Max? Are you using the Bat4Max defaults? Do you have Gamma Correction turned on in Gamma/LUT settings? For the nightwindows on your latest, I think they are fine like that. I can make out something inside the building. It doesnt always have to be clearly visible what's going on inside I think.
  2. andisart's BAT cookery

    @Jasoncw you mean the glass facade, right? and upping the samples you mean Final Gather? The light looks really nice in your examples, I assume you only included the interior geometry to be affected by the light? not sure if this method works for outdoors, at least in my case, since there needs to be a gradient falloff on the facade upwards and as I understand it your technique fills the whole space, right? For the lack of shadows I agree and I noticed that before also but was a bit lost since the cast-shadows option is ticked on a lights. Maybe it's because it's set to Shadow Maps? Yea I've been trying to minimize LOD shape as much as possible already. So I guess I have to live with it.
  3. andisart's BAT cookery

    thank you! I found that this happens only with custom LODs for some reason. The more "boxy" a LOD is the less this happens in my experience thank you <3 which images from which post look grainy to you? the last post? in the last post the render is done with standard Max 2011 settings with default Bat4Max settings, didnt change anything. I never really liked the glare function. Thanks for the tip, but I don't understand how you mean yet. This is for shadows in this example only I assume? The lights on the balcony are local only, so I don't know how you mean a skyportal could be used here.
  4. Adrianor's Latin American BATs

    great progress, I have nothing to add that wasnt said yet, only that I would prefer awnings without logos as well, at least as optional
  5. On001222 Thailand Bat Thread

    great progress!
  6. andisart's BAT cookery

    Improved night view: dark areas were pitch black, now brighter & blend in better (was due to reflection map to dark) reflection splotches on the extension removed improved lobby appearance (MoMA signs visible) crown platform with desaturated light, less hypnotizing now that I put people in it lol lights in the sky garden minor fixes Taking a final look at the day view now, then getting ready towards release.
  7. SIM MARS continued works

    You didn't contact me. You are welcome to create content for SimMars, but things Beta 4 would still have to be run by me. I'm still the team lead here. As for Beta 4, like it was before, if there are enough people creating content then we can talk about it. Until then this won't be a one man show. Beta 4 goals were already laid out in another thread as well.
  8. andisart's BAT cookery

    thanks :-) I know it's not what the original will look like, but I thought it could do with an eyecather top. Does anyone know how to fix the issue when using custom LODs where there occur glitches ingame with some part of the texture set back sllightly in some zoom levels at some parts (lots of some's there lol). Here's what I mean, see the horizontal line on top of the colored area, it's not an even straight line in Zoom4 render. Weird thing is, it is not recreatable. When I plop the building again not the same spot will have the issue, but other parts will. And my LOD is spot on clean, only polygons (4-sided) and checked with X-View and not too complicated (also this happens all the time for with custom LODs, have seen also on other downloads) http://s1.bild.me/bilder/240416/4079000error2.jpg
  9. Not sure I understand you correctly, but the reason for bug fixing is usability. If you can't use a file what's the point of it being downloadable. The bug fixing aspect for me is beyond right or wrong, but simply assuring usability. Right or wrong for me starts more when files should be changed according to what people like, as you say, even though it wasn't in the authors intention. I think in this case it must be left to the uploader to create another version or not. What example where you thinking of when making this point?
  10. Well, like I said the most obvious is errors in files that prevent it from being used, so that meaning bug fixing, i.e. a bug that leads to CTD. A bug wasnt intended by the creator and therefore there is no issue to fix it. The other thing, where it gets a bit less clear, is balancing. Take the bus example I used above. If that small bus stop's capacity is so out of scale that placing it in your city will destroy the whole balance of the transit network, no one will use it. UNLESS, this is that the creator intended it to be. Some sort of magical super-power bus stop. Or as a better example the black-hole trash converter or what it is called or the push-the-trash-over-the-edge-of-the-map lot. Or a futuristic power station that has capacity unheard of today. So context is key. If intended by the creator it's not an imbalance, if not and it is overly out of balance I think a fix is no issue. Also there are sometimes issues with files having properties totally not related to a file, or which are contradicting what the purpose and intention of it is. For instance a park that also creates pollution. This is something I also consider a bug as most like this was overlooked by the creator. Again, context is important of course for special cases. So I think this is what can be labelled "obvious". What is less so and more problematic is going into more specific balancing or general checking a file, here the lines blur too much of what the author intended and it also starts to come down to personal preference. If it is something minor about a file that someone doesnt like then the user will need to learn to fix it themselves or ask someone. Again, general functionality and usability of the file should be the deciding factor as what to change. I don't think with this approach there will be a backlash or lack of understanding as why a fix is offered. Also, it is only optional. Users should be able to just report what they think, the team should be the ones deciding then.
  11. If it's a massive scale approach that aims to review every file on the STEX I think it's questionable if it will ever be completed successfully. Maybe a better approach is to go with a more per-demand approach, meaning implementing a report system where users can report a problem for a file. Then a team can deal with the incoming report tickets and go from there. This approach significantly reduces the workload targets files that actually need to be looked at uses the community as manpower to locate those files the per-demand element ensures files that are popular and actually used most are in good shape For the type of fixes I would also take a small approach: no content improvements / additions but only obvious things like errors that cause issues while using the file or fixing imbalances (i.e. small bus stop has capacity of a large hub etc) that affect playing the game negatively and which were not intended by the creator but only overlooked or missed. I favor this small approach for workload and also copyright issue reasons. The fixed file should best be offered on the same file page, as an optional, or as additiona tab as suggested, for simplicity reason. Also, are we not also talking about fixing the text formatting and the missing preview images with older files? For accessibility this point has be fixed for all affected files, not matter if there's issues with the file itself. About having a general quality control, I also do not favor this option. This is something that turned me off from getting my files on the exchange at SC4Devotion. The rules were too strict. I prefer the open approach ST has always had. But I see there is much room for supporting creators with documentation to give them a better chance to create better uploads. Comprehensive tutorials with linking where to find them in the upload page and maybe a checklist during the upload procedure as a reminder for the most important points to consider could be an option.
  12. andisart's BAT cookery

    Thanks hun :-* maybe I'll tap into C:S one day I tried that before, but didn't like how it looked UPDATE: nightlights zoom 5 http://s1.bild.me/bilder/060112/4618924night-test-z5.jpg
  13. andisart's BAT cookery

    That's the old render you refering to. That's what I meant with the bump effect was too intense, it created distorted effects. Check the new render above, it is milder. Let's double check the full model on completion though, but it should be good now. And your look at the BAT is of course appreciated, you don't need to know BATing to give feedback Actually sometimes a person disconnected from creating BATs can see some things more clearly in a render, cause they are not so involved.
×