However, MicroWave is still much handier to use in that case. Do you really need the model to be much lighter? For real time applications sometimes the original tesselated model is fine too. You need to think twice before you buy it just for this purpose. Using surface Baker is only a workaround, and not a very good one at that. Using MicroWave is the only way you can actually remap the solution to the original model. When do I use this method as opposed to the Surface Baker method described in Part V? Also, image maps are easier to manipulate than vertex maps and therefore if there needs to be tweaking of the GI solution or the textures or something, it can be easily done in Photoshop or an equivalent program. However when we for instance want to make a VRML walk through, or any other kind of real-time application, its usually best to bake the maps to prevent differences in viewing applications to mess with the vertex maps versus the applied textures (if they can handle it at all).Ī second reason for baking the images is that after the images are applied to the model the excessive tessellation of the model is no longer necessary, and we can start optimizing the model, to gain even more speed, and regain some control over the model. The solution will hardly render any faster. Usually we don't need to bake the solution to image maps at all, it only takes us time and effort to do so, and potentially degrades the image quality. The vertex maps give us everything we need in order to render the solution as it stands. To take the Lightwave objects we created in the previous parts of the model and use Microwave to bake the lighting solution into Image maps as opposed to Vertex Maps. Accutrans 3D (Only for Part IV of the tutorial, read step VI-3a to see why).Lightscape v3.0 or higher (preferably 3.2).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |