- This topic has 38 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When I made Fathom vintage I had exactly the same thoughts as Haunt lately had. If I put the playfield shadows in the playfield image, it is forever and ever with shadows and maybe not usable for future authors. And given, that stitching together all those bad perspective, details images to a nearly 4k image was a PITA for me, it would be a pity, if this was lost forever and couldn’t be used by someone else.
The reason, why I finally did bake it in was the fact, that an additional shadow layer would hide all playfield reflections, which I didn’t want at all.
I thought about two solutions:
– I could publish a clean version at two sites or so as a recource (I wanted, but didn’t, not sure why)
– I could add the clean image into the table image collection without really using it (increases file and needed RAM size)I give this for discussion because I’m close to releasing an update for Fathom vintage and release the new Fathom LED Mod and would be interested in your opinions or ideas.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I find that latest suggestion to be a good solution. Keeping the image in HQ inside the table. I didn’t know that it uses RAM if there are no references to it ? You sure about it ?
Sounds like something that should be fixed to be honest.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
no I’m not really sure, just an assumption. I mean the table file is loaded as it is to the RAM, where to else?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I’m not sure I agree that an additional shadow layer hides the playfield reflections, in fact I’m pretty sure it doesn’t, just played with a table I have a shadow layer on to see, and reflections are definitely still there.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Best would be include both I think in table.
********************************************************
Messing with the VPinball app and push notifications.
So if you haven't downloaded app yet what are you waiting for!?
for IOS and Android********************************************************
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Ultimately it’s up to the author. If your table is already to heavily taxed and causing slowed downs, baking it directly will help deduce that.
Too do this though I was required to have 2 layers. and as you can see my PF surface reflex ions are still accounted for.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
BorgDog yes and no, I think, actually think and not know. My thoughts: that a horizontal wall with an image is not capable of reflections like the playfield I think is a fact. On the other hand shadows usually are not solid but have a lot of transparency so the reflections from below can still be seen. That’s maybe why it works with a shadow layer.
On the other hand (a very picky argumentation I confess) let’s say some plain grey surface with a thin glass above (like some material covered by a clear coat) the shadow would lie on the color surface whereas the reflection would happen on the glass surface ABOVE the shadow.
Actually I didn’t test both options, but these were my thoughts.
arconovum: impressive and yes the reflections are still visible. A shadow layer in your case is a wall with an image?
Maybe I made it too complicated and it really doesn’t matter. Still I’d like to use a bked in version. What would you choose of my suggestions above? I tend to including the clear image directly in the table.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I think you can have a shadow layer and retain reflections. If you don’t like the results of a shadow/transparent image on a playfield-level ramp you might look at what Dark is doing with baked shadows on a flasher. Intriguing stuff.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I think you can have a shadow layer and retain reflections. If you don’t like the results of a shadow/transparent image on a playfield-level ramp you might look at what Dark is doing with baked shadows on a flasher. Intriguing stuff.
that’s how I do it, baked shadow on a flasher not a ramp or wall.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I really don’t think I need to chime in on this one…. its pretty cut and dry….lol
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Lol HF.. I had a joke for that comment of yours but will keep it to myself!
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
what means “cut and dry”?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Or you could just include a resources packet in the download file.
Current Project: Perpetual updates of VPX physics.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
You could upload the unmodified playfield image as a separate VP resource upload
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Playfield shadows on a separate layer do not affect playfield reflections, if you are having an issue with that can you upload an example?
Punch it!
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Ultimately it’s up to the author. If your table is already to heavily taxed and causing slowed downs, baking it directly will help deduce that. Too do this though I was required to have 2 layers. and as you can see my PF surface reflex ions are still accounted for.
ummm… who is this guy anyways! really cool stuff. amazing really!
********************************************************
Messing with the VPinball app and push notifications.
So if you haven't downloaded app yet what are you waiting for!?
for IOS and Android********************************************************
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
all this is just silly… a baked texture is a step backwards in VP tech
why not just have one big layer, or go back to “photo realistic” VP
or 1024 x 1024 PF images…
Just because a VERY VERY talented builder has decided to do this doesn’t mean it’s right…
how can this even be a discussion??…. the topic should be called “why the hell would you need to bake a shadow onto a PF”
the PF no lights no shadows… make it look as close to a stripped PF with moderate ambient light (VPX can do the rest) perfect example is borgs Golden Arrow
the shadows image on a ramp, wall, flasher… just that its not baked into the PF
this has worked fine ever since we could do it….You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Well, honestly, build it how you want to build it, don’t worry about how others tell you to build things! But since it’s been brought up, don’t baked shadows in simply because you think it doesn’t work. If you wanted to bake shadows in the pf image because it’s EASIER for you, then that’s your prerogative and nobodies business
Punch it!
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
1 user thanked author for this post.
Well said Fren
********************************************************
Messing with the VPinball app and push notifications.
So if you haven't downloaded app yet what are you waiting for!?
for IOS and Android********************************************************
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I agree… just don’t wreck the PF image….. oh wait… there are 5 ways to do it, and only one wrecks the PF image… how about we dont do that one…just out of respect for the table itself, and we won’t regret it in the future like MANY MANY playfields from the past… we have hundreds of unusable PF images from the past because lights and shadows were baked onto them… so fuck it… lets just relive history…Â
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Forums are currently locked.
