Page 9 of 9

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:11 pm
by Gez
The sky's distortion* is very bad here. The Moon's flatness is blatant, and you can see the angle in the starry sky...

Tormentor667 wrote:Image


(* I could have sworn it was "distorsion" since after all it's based on "torsion" but Firefox's spell checker disagreed.)

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:01 pm
by Zippy
It's distortion. You can't always trust Firefox's spell checker though. I've come across a thing or two I've had to add to its dictionary that seemed like that should already have been there.

Also, try buckinghamshire (with the lowercase b.)

...

buckinghamshire nonsense!

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 pm
by .+:icytux:+.
gzdoom should make the "distortion" on the sky like a globe and not like a cube...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:02 am
by Risen
If that's even possible, only optionally. You'd lose the effect of many tricks that use a skybox if it just used that style outright.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:20 am
by wildweasel
.+:icytux:+. wrote:gzdoom should make the "distortion" on the sky like a globe and not like a cube...

That only applies for traditional patch-based skies - it seems Torm is using the GZDoom-style cube skybox.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:03 am
by Graf Zahl
Arrrghhhh. How often do I have to tell that the 6-face skyboxes have the needed distortion for representing a spherical sky already in the picture? Otherwise they wouldn't work at all because you could see the edges of the cube in the sky.


The distorted moon is the result of a the rather wide field of view that is standard in 3D shooters. You even get this in movies if wide enough lenses are used and the cameraman is not careful enough to avoid it.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:29 pm
by Gez
Graf Zahl wrote:Arrrghhhh. How often do I have to tell that the 6-face skyboxes have the needed distortion for representing a spherical sky already in the picture? Otherwise they wouldn't work at all because you could see the edges of the cube in the sky.


It would be more exact to say that they need to have the distortion taken into account in the pictures, because otherwise they don't work as you see the edges of the cube in the sky.

Which is just what happens here. I see the edges of the starry cube.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:31 pm
by Nash
I'm guessing that the skybox itself is not a very good skybox then, because most of the good skyboxes I see in games are very transparent (meaning that I do NOT see a cube at all).

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:48 pm
by Graf Zahl
If you can see the shape of the cube in any skybox it's time to dump it. Period. Unfortunately Tormentor's shots are again way too dark for my monitor so I can't really see what's in them.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:09 pm
by Gez
The thing is that if all you want is to use a custom texture for your sky, then you should just use the MAPINFO texture option rather than using a skybox. You should only use a skybox if you have textures that are specially made for a skybox (and thus account for the distortion). Programs like Terragen can do that. (Quoting from Unreal Wiki: "Due to the way Terragen renders and the parallax effect of the skybox only a simple cube is needed for the skybox brush. Spheres and cylinders are not necessary.")

For example, importing E1M1 in Doom 2, I made a noob mistake by trying to use the proper sky without overwriting Doom 2's skies, and simply used a cube skybox with Doom 1's sky (imported as sky_de1m1) along its walls. It was awful, as you can guess. Attempting to round up the skybox solved nothing, and just made aligning the texture harder. And there was no satisfying solution for the top side... Then I just removed the skybox entirely and used MAPINFO, and miracle, it was nice.

The moral of the story being that if you don't have a sky that is meant to be used for a cube skybox, don't use it for a skybox.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:47 am
by Tormentor667