Foxy's Random Stuff

[Foxbox]

Rather than creating a new topic for each screenshot, i'll put my screenshots in here from now on.

Should be a bit more organized.

 

 

First screenshots:

Beating the "Urban Park" RCT1 recreation without buying additional land.

 

it works, but its a very close call. You need constantly add new layers of path or the guests will leave the park, because its too crowded.

Topspin's are the main money-maker, but the problem is, that they take a lot of vertical space.

Also: had to block the entrance to prevent leaving guests ...

 

 

[Foxbox]

@imlegos

thank you for telling me, where to put custom objects :>

 

had a lot of fun yesterday

 

[Foxbox]

Any suggestions for improvement?

is this close enogh to the real one?

I think im going to make the banner dynamic via XML.

[imlegos]

Maybe give a proper comparison shot between it and the in-game sprites?

[Foxbox]

@imlegos

difficult. its hard to get the correct angle in 3ds max. Orthographic dosnt seems to work as expected.

 

I know, the golden teddy bears are missing... I dont know the anatomy of bears and usually im going the opposite way, when i see a bear

 

 

and here in Nolimits 2:

Im trying to convert all rides into Nolimits 2 (that means: manually recreating every sprite into a working 3D model.

In 3D the shading is working as expected and the building looks brighter.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

7 hours ago, Foxy said:

difficult. its hard to get the correct angle in 3ds max

For the camera angle, it should be angled 30 degrees down and then rotated 45 degrees about the vertical axis. If it is correct, horizontal lines should have a 2:1 gradient on screen.

[BlazingEmpireHD]

This is incredible! I am in love, @Foxy. I will be excited to see more of your work!

[Foxbox]

@X7123M3-256

thats the angle im using. Its strange, that the towers are shorter. I increased the terrain to get the hight values.

Maybe, the height-values in RCT2 are not correct. Maybe 1 square is 5m² / 16,4 feet² (and not 3m² / 9,8 feet²)

 

@BlazingEmpireHD

thank you, but befor i can start with the attractions, i need to figure out the exact measurements.

The precision in Nolimits 2 (as well as 3ds max) is measured in milimeter, thats why i need to be exact. (about 0,00328 feet)

 

----------------------

 

Now that i think about it.... Chris Sawyer has its origin in great britain, am i right?...

They use the imperial system and Nolimits 2 uses/needs the metric system... Maybe this is why it looks so strage. >>> conversion errors <<<

 

But when i use feet, it would look strange in 3d. I think i stick to metric.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

Are you sure you're using an orthographic camera? In your image, the entrance doesn't line up with the tiles properly (look closely at the bottom corners). An incorrect scale would not cause this, either your view angle is wrong or you are using a perspective projection. The easiest way to test that would be to render a wireframe cube - if the projection is orthographic, all lines that are parallel in 3D space are parallel in the image.

 

6 hours ago, Foxy said:

Maybe, the height-values in RCT2 are not correct. Maybe 1 square is 5m² / 16,4 feet² (and not 3m² / 9,8 feet²)

You're forgetting that RCT2 uses a dimetric projection, not isometric. If you are going by the height marks on the terrain, then size of a tile should be 1.5√ 6m≈3.674m . However, do note that RCT2 doesn't use consistent units throughout, so you are to some extent free to choose a scale. I use the height marks and stick to that; I do not trust anything from the ride stats window as they disagree not just with the measurements used elsewhere in the game, but with each other.

6 hours ago, Foxy said:

But when i use feet, it would look strange in 3d. I think i stick to metric.

 

Changing units should not change the ouput at all as long as you use the correct conversion between them, and even if you get that wrong it cannot be the cause of the misalignment, because this would just make the image larger or smaller, not change angles.

Internally, RCT2 does not use metric or imperial - horizontal distances are measured in fractions of a tile and vertical distances are measured in fractions of a clearance. I sometimes find it useful to work in these units (because it scales out all the irrational numbers from the projection), but I mostly use SI units. You can set the game to use SI in the options (I think this was an OpenRCT2 addition).

[Foxbox]

50 minutes ago, X7123M3-256 said:

Are you sure you're using an orthographic cam

Yes i am. But maybe 3ds max has some strange presets for the view...

I'll try to find a tutorial on how to set-up a physics camera for dimetric projection

 

 

54 minutes ago, X7123M3-256 said:

If you are going by the height marks on the terrain, then size of a tile should be 1.5√ 6m≈3.674

my current area per tile in 3ds max is 3m x 3m.

But an increase of the area would make the height look even smaller.

a decrease of the area would make it look taller and according to the comparison, it needs to be taller.

 

 

 

[X7123M3-256]

I know nothing of 3DS Max, but are you sure those settings are for the camera and not the viewport? If those settings are for the camera, why do you have "top" selected? Wouldn't that position the camera to look down the vertical axis?

45 minutes ago, Foxy said:

I'll try to find a tutorial on how to set-up a physics camera for dimetric projection

A dimetric projection is an orthographic projection where 2 coordinate axes are equally foreshortened. I gave you the angles to use, if you have the camera set up like that (which it looks like you do) then your projection must not be orthographic. Try rendering a cube - that will make it immediately apparent if your projection is orthographic or not.

 

51 minutes ago, Foxy said:

my current area per tile in 3ds max is 3m x 3m.

But an increase of the area would make the height look even smaller.

It's the model that needs to be made taller, nothing to do with the projection. If you change the scale you'll make it taller, but you'll also make it wider and it's pretty much the right width already.

[Foxbox]

@X7123M3-256

 

I also tried a scaled up version:

 

Its far from what i want... i think i really need to redo the 3d model.

What i need to improve:

• add a normal map
• figure out the camera distance
• smaller dark-brown (or red) stones
• banner texture (do i need something special, to add a marquee-like park name in RCT2 -> in case i convert the result as an actual entrance for RCT2)
• changeing the battlement and machicolation as well as its support structure (the green lines between the towers)

 

The setup for the first project always takes a lot of time.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

12 minutes ago, Foxy said:

• figure out the camera distance

 

With an orthographic projection only the angle matters. An orthographic projection is equivalent to transforming the scene into camera space then dropping the z coordinate. It doesn't matter what the z coordinate was because you discard it. If you find that moving the camera further away changes the image, your projection is not orthographic. This is the reason the game uses an orthographic projection in the first place - if it had perspective projection, you would need a different sprite for every possible object position.

15 minutes ago, Foxy said:

banner texture (do i need something special, to add a marquee-like park name in RCT2 -> in case i convert the result as an actual entrance for RCT2)

No, that text is added by the game, you don't need to render it.

[Foxbox]

@X7123M3-256

I just downloaded the object editor to test something.

It seems like it automaticly rescales large images (which is good, because than the distance factor really dosnt matter).

 

In that case, the only thing i need to do is to make sure, that the object uses the full image.

 

But i think the downloaded version of the object creator is wrong. There is no option for multi-tile objects. I have version 1.01.

[X7123M3-256]

1 hour ago, Foxy said:

(which is good, because than the distance factor really dosnt matter).

The distance of the camera from the object should not have any effect on the scale of the image. If the position of the camera has any effect besides translating the image, then your projection is wrong - only the orientation is important. If the object looks smaller when the camera is further away, that's a perspective projection.

1 hour ago, Foxy said:

But i think the downloaded version of the object creator is wrong. There is no option for multi-tile objects. I have version 1.01.

Large scenery is a seperate object type. (I've never used the object editor so I really don't know if it's supported, but if the option doesn't seem to be there, it's possible that it isn't. I expect someone else will know one way or another). Entrances are another object type.

The only thing you need to bear in mind when making multi-tile objects is that each sprite can only occupy one tile; you will need to split your sprites up. This can be done by splitting up the model and rendering three images.

[Foxbox]

 

 

 

8 hours ago, X7123M3-256 said:

The distance of the camera from the object should not have any effect on the scale of the image. If the position of the camera has any effect besides translating the image, then your projection is wrong - only the orientation is important. If the object looks smaller when the camera is f

sorry, but in this case you are wrong.

See the difference in size:

and this is not translating to the left/right/up/down. Its scale factor and it does matter. Even in openRCT2.

both have different scaling factors because of the zoom:

this is why it is difficult to copy the rendering into an existing image.

And because the editor scales it down, the copy and paste problem is already solved.

 

Quote

The only thing you need to bear in mind when making multi-tile objects is that each sprite can only occupy one tile; you will need to split your sprites up. This can be done by splitting up the model and rendering three images.

I found another version:

http://tid.rctspace.com/Beta/index.html

Quote

includes setting for disabling supports under large objects;

looks like this one can do large objects... just need to find it

EDIT: Ha! found it. just click "New" button  

 

 

 

RCT2 Traditional Park entrance (Test Rendering)

for some reason, it dosnt render the park sign. I think i need to create it by myself anyway.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

5 hours ago, Foxy said:

See the difference in size:

These appear to be two screenshots taken at different zoom levels. That is not moving the camera, it's rescaling the sprites, so it shouldn't be surprising that it changes the size of the sprites. In fact, RCT2's "camera" only stores two coordinates, so there's no way to change it's z coordinate, it doesn't even have one (since it would do nothing). If the game was using a perspective projection, then placing two pieces of scenery, one towards the back of the visible area and one at the front, would result in two different images because one is further from the camera.

Now, if the projection you're using is not the correct one then it's close enough that I can't tell the difference, so if you are using a perspective projection it must have a very long focal length. It looks to me like your camera is set up correctly, but if you are finding that the distance matters then it definitely isn't.

This property of an orthographic projection is the reason you can't look inside a building, and why you can get confusion where two roof pieces appear to connect but are actually in completely different places. A game like this would not work with a perspective projection - similar games with a perspective projection are all rendered in real time.

 

5 hours ago, Foxy said:

for some reason, it dosnt render the park sign. I think i need to create it by myself anyway.

Sorry, I think I might have confused you a bit - you have to render the background of the sign, the scrolling text is what gets inserted automatically.

Edited February 18, 2017 by X7123M3-256

[Foxbox]

@X7123M3-256

You are right about the 2 coordinates in RCT2. But 3Ds max has 3 coordinates, that i have to take care of

And the distance from camera to object is the equivalent of an RCT2 zoom-level. If this distance is not correct, the result in the object creator looks like this:

I changed the Z-axis of the camera in 3ds max (Which is a 3 dimensional space) and the rendering dosnt fit anymore. That's what i was talking about. You cant force a 3 dimensional space just to collapse into a 2 dimensional space. The X Y Z axis of the camera as well as its FOV determin how the rendering would look as an image. All the time, i was talking about rendering an image in 3D space and not about how RCT2 displays an image. When the 3D model is not properly rendered, it will mess up the final result in RCT2 as well.

Thats why i need to make sure, that the rendering is correct and don't need to care whatever RCT2 uses to display it.

 

But i can show you the difference between a perspective rendering (wich i normally use for images) and a dimetric emulation (that i have used for the Object Creator):

Hopefully, you see, that there is no problem anymore. I have used all your infos a few posts ago to fix it. But as i said: i need to figure out the distance in 3ds max (Yes, 3DS MAX, not RCT2 :D), because without a 3rd axis, it would be impossible to create 3d models

Its unimportant for RCT2 but very important for a 3d modelling programm. The resulting image determine how big the sprite would be.

 

Its really difficult for me to explain this in a foreign language :> (its already difficult enogh in german as well...)

I hope this post makes my problem a bit clearer.

 

BTW:

I have now saved a preset file, to get a consistant rendering result, so i only need to take care of the 3D model itself.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

1 hour ago, Foxy said:

But 3Ds max has 3 coordinates, that i have to take care of

Yes, of course. Blender works the same way, even if the camera is orthographic it still has a 3D position. But with an orthographic projection, the distance doesn't matter, so you can just choose whatever value is convenient. Your projection does look correct, so I'm not sure why you're finding that the distance matters - are you sure you're not using a perspective projection with a long focal length?

 

1 hour ago, Foxy said:

The X Y Z axis of the camera as well as its FOV determin how the rendering would look as an image.

 

An orthographic camera does not have an FOV (or perhaps another way to think of it is, an orthographic projection is a limiting case of a perspective projection as the FOV angle tends to zero). If you use a perspective projection, the field of view looks like a pyramid, and the FOV angle is the angle that the sides make with with each other. With an orthographic camera, those sides are parallel. Here's a picture I found that illustrates this:

 

 

 

 

 

[Foxbox]

1 hour ago, X7123M3-256 said:

But with an orthographic projection, the distance doesn't matter

and why is the first picture different?

because i change the distance in the renderer.

if it really dosnt matter, then the "SW" image should looks like the "SE" and "NE"

 

 

I make it simple:

What happens, if you setup a camera far away from the object and render it as orthographic projection?

The object appearssmaller on the image.

 

What happens, if you setup a camera close to the object and render it as orthographic projection?

The object appears bigger on the image.

1 hour ago, X7123M3-256 said:

An orthographic camera does not have an FOV

 

Hey a Field of View for Orthographic Projection  (this are parameters for a camera, so its a orthographic camera, when the checkbox is enabled.)

Autodesk 3Ds Max defies the laws of ... anything

And it changes exactly what said above. It changes the render distance towards the object. (Same as i would increase the distance).

 

What it does is simple: Take a normal image and rescale it. That what the result of FOV looks like after rendering. You could say its like zoom lens.

do you want a video on how it works?

 

http://flash-fox.de/rct2/video/projection/

 

This is the problem i have. I dont know, how far / narrow the FOV has to be.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Foxy

[X7123M3-256]

Oh, OK, I understand now. That's... really strange. I have no idea what 3DS max is doing there, but that is definitely the correct projection. I think the simplest way to set the correct scale is to make a single square, and then make it the size that you want a tile to be (which seems to be arbitrary, anything between 3 and 4 metres is a reasonable value). Then adjust the camera until the image is 64 by 31 pixels, as this is the size of the tile sprites in gam.

[Foxbox]

 

1 hour ago, X7123M3-256 said:

make a single square, and then make it the size that you want a tile to be (which seems to be arbitrary, anything between 3 and 4 metres is a reasonable value)

This is what i have done right from the beginning. The entrance is 3 meter wide and 9 meter long.

i could multiply it up 3 times the width (because the entrance needs

1 hour ago, X7123M3-256 said:

Then adjust the camera until the image is 64 by 31 pixels, as this is the size of the tile sprites in gam.

This is impossible, because if the camera is set to 64x31 pixel, the width (or height) is doubled (image aspect: 2,065 or 0,484). And even when i reduce the "FOV" to fit the entire picture, it would just look like the secound image (64x64).

I enabled save frames, which is basicly what you said about adjusting the camera

This is the area that will be rendered.

 

The perfect image aspect is 0,861. But the resultion is too small. The entrance is so small, that even a fox wouldn't fit through it. Maybe the object editor needs bigger images.

I think, the solution is very close.

 

EDIT:

It also seems to work with your aspect ratio, but the resolution has be bigger in order to work.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Foxy

[Foxbox]

Good news, everyone

 

 

 

Its completly broken 

(Whats good about that?... i dont know :3 )

 

 

let me guess: ... Green is placeholder-color. Am i right?

 

here the download, if you want to see it for yourself: NLPKENT1.DAT

 

[YoloSweggLord]

The green palette that you used is the one for primary recolorable pixels, which doesn't work on park entrances.

[X7123M3-256]

Note that the primary remap colors never appear in game (they are always remapped to another color before being rendered), which makes their actual color somewhat arbitrary. Just about every RCT2 tool (including the object editor) uses green for these remap colors, but OpenRCT2's own sprite importer uses orange. If you are making sprites to be added to g2.dat, that's something to be aware of.