some words on baked in playfield shadows

[Flupper]

Difficult discussion this. The reason for me is ….:

– performance (removing one transparent layer gave 8% performance increase)

– i already had a transparent layer for the lighting, with some issues to get it working

– the original playfield is higher res than what is in Diner, I sent a whole resource package to Clark for future reference

 

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[HauntFreaks]

Flupper wrote:

Difficult discussion this. The reason for me is ….: – performance (removing one transparent layer gave 8% performance increase) – i already had a transparent layer for the lighting, with some issues to get it working – the original playfield is higher res than what is in Diner, I sent a whole resource package to Clark for future reference

I have personally never seen a performance issue (i5 760ti)  (nothing special)
when I make them I use a ramp and everything is turned off, other than it being visible  (I have only chosen to use a ramp because I did it once it worked so never used anything else ever since, so there wasn’t much thought put into why i chose a ramp)
see now people are starting to use flasher for this, I might have to learn that technique, it seems possible to make a more dramatic effect when combined with GI changes

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[vogliadicane]

lol weired discussion, as if I talked about something very very dirty

Haunt: I think, my initial question was’t silly at all (did you even read my first post?), I saw the problem and offered two solutions, soo…

 

Ok, my decision is taken, I keep them baked in together with my second solution (or roths proposal).

Why?
because I have already made it
I think it is ok

Maybe next time, when I am more experienced.

Thanks all for input

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[HauntFreaks]

vogliadicane wrote:

lol weired discussion, as if I talked about something very very dirty Haunt: I think, my initial question was’t silly at all (did you even read my first post?), I saw the problem and offered two solutions, soo… Ok, my decision is taken, I keep them baked in together with my second solution (or roths proposal). Why? because I have already made it I think it is ok Maybe next time, when I am more experienced. Thanks all for input

my response was to blanket statement about any thoughts of baking anything into the PF… people are going to do what they’re going to do, my opinions were  just to state creating a shadow on the image and creating the shadow on a layer above the PF image takes the same amount of time (in PS)(I dont even use the PF at all to make my shadows)
copy and pasting a shadow layer while in the VPX editor… takes maybe 5 seconds moren to add…

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[BorgDog]

vogliadicane wrote:

lol weired discussion, as if I talked about something very very dirty Haunt: I think, my initial question was’t silly at all (did you even read my first post?), I saw the problem and offered two solutions, soo…  

The thing is your perceived problem of the shadow layer blocking playfield reflections is just NOT true.  If there is a performance hit, then maybe that discussion is valid (although not nearly the performance hit of a unrealistic shadow following the ball around the playfield, but don’t get me started on that one).

But as has been said, you as the person building the table can do it however you like, and we all welcome more vpx tables.

- Star Wars Wedgehead cab build

- Alien Star Resurrection!

 

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[Sliderpoint]

I vote to just put a ‘clean’ image in the table and not use it.  That should really have minimal impact and appease whoever.

-Mike

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[vogliadicane]

vogliadicane wrote:

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.

…

Actually I didn’t test both options, but these were my thoughts.

…

Maybe I made it too complicated and it really doesn’t matter. …

BorgDog ok then it was a misunderstanding. I didn’t “preceive” a problem, but assumed there might be one (see my post cited abovewhere I describe my thoughts). And that’s what I wanted to discuss, not more.

Anyway maybe I try both and compare the results, just out of curiosity.

And thanks Ben for the like , I guess you appreciate and got it, that I just want to share the playfield image in a proper way and made my thoughts about the best solution to do so.

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[vogliadicane]

ok I’m a scientist so to my opinion best is a proof of principal, so I tested it.

Made a 50% grey image as playfield image
Placed 5 discs with opacity 100-80-60-40-20 on top representing shadows
Saved 3 files: playfield clear, shadows only and shadows baked in
Opened a new clean table in vpx
Placed a wall all over the playfield (material PlasicWithAnImage) and I hope this is at least one of the valid ways to do so
Assigned images according to the two techniques and compared

See the images attached. To my own surprise (yes, you almost convinced me there is no difference) there is a pretty big difference. The difference is not so much visible at low opacities, which is surely the common situation, but it has definitely an effect. Don’t get me wrong again, I don’t wanna be right at any price, but with this experiment only contribute to clarify one of the many mysteria within VP ;)

Edit: oh so you can test it on your own I also attached the table file I used

Attachments:

1. 

   TestTischBaked.png
   

2. 

   TestTischSeperate.png
   

1. TestTableShadowsBaked.zip

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[arconovum]

firstly the baked is *incorrect, and the layered is correct, and I will tell you why.. Complete black cannot reflect light, it absorbed the entire spectrum of light. So why the reflection in your baked version is because, your 100% black is either not actually 100% anymore, or probably due to some processing or lack of on the part of VP pertaining to playfields.

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[HauntFreaks]

so since i didnt add this part to the topics now is a good time…. there will be a couple factors when you’re making the shadow layer in PS
how much blur , this is determined by the height of the object creating the shadow closer to the PF sharper the shadow
how transparent the shadow will be this is effected by the height and the overall lighting of the table, if its a dark table the shadow will need to be darker
remember what we do on these tables in reality is “fantasy” sure we all would love for the tables to look as real as possible…  but sometimes reality is, well Boring
so we ramp it up a bit… all our tables are right off the bat over saturated, but we do that to make them pop, sometime the lighting is over exaggerated, to give them more curb appeal …. any back to this process
so once you have the shadow created in PS and saved with the alpha layer (we use PNG)
its time to bring it into the editor… again that as easy as copy and pasting it from a table that has this layer already, or make one from scratch
plop you shadow image into the image manager, assign it to layer you made…. (if you use a ramp or wall the shadow will automatically fit to the table)
so here’s what that long lead up was about…. choosing a material… you can just use plastic with a light blah blah blah….
but more important you now have control over its opacity so clone the material and use this as the shadow layer play with different opacities until it looks right to you….
ALSO by doing this you let the tinkerers have control of how they would like this to look on there rig…. kinda the point of VPX, it can look how ever the end user wants it to…. not proof read, so have fun

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

1 user thanked author for this post.

Thalamus

[Dark]

I figure I should chime in on this a bit, it’s my humble opinion that a PF shadow should never really be baked onto a PF for a variety of reasons already listed.  It leaves a lot more options open if you have the shadow on a flasher, wall or ramp.  I prefer flasher since you can adjust opacity to tweak your shadows.

I render the table from above using a camera, using a shadow matte material, the shadow matte will as the name implies, capture shadows in the rendering while preserving a transparent alpha selection.  In order to capture only the shadows I apply the shadow matter material to the PF or a flat plane the same size as the PF I then select everything else and in the object options I set them all to not be ‘visible to camera’ that way I only get the shadows.

How the shadows look, how blurry or focused depends on the type of lighting used, the position of the light and how far away the light is among other factors.  This is all personal preference but generally people like shadows to be some what ‘soft’ while still maintaining some form/shape of the objects they are being cast from.

Here is one of the shadows

I kind of took the effect to the next level for Jurassic Park by swapping flasher images to actually have (fake pre-rendered) dynamic, realistic shadows for when GI turns off and on as well as some shadow effects for the main flasher domes.  I also did shadows for the plastics layer so nuts and screws etc would cast shadows.  Though the resolution of the shadows is considerably lower than the PF, it still naturally increases file size and it will require some performance out of the game engine.  My thinking was that I optimised other things like combining all my plastics into one mesh with one texture map for example that saved me some performance so I spent it elsewhere.  So long as it runs smooth for me at full video settings during the 6 ball multiball I figure it’s acceptable but you guys will need to consider how you want to ‘spend your performance’ on your tables….you can’t expect to have it all and have it still perform well.

At the very least though you could have the PF as a flasher and just have it static and it would be the same as if it were baked onto your PF except now there’s the option of people being able to turn it off.  You could also animate it to just raise/lower opacity when GI turns on/off.  I think the performance cost of just the PF shadow is fairly negligible.

There’s my 2 cents on the topic. 

 

Attachments:

1. 

   Shadow-PF-GI-ON-b-1.png
   

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

2 users thanked author for this post.

HauntFreaks, Thalamus

[HauntFreaks]

thats next level shit…LOL  

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[arconovum]

lol dark it looks like an x-ray

EDIT: many good points HF on your last entry..

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[vogliadicane]

arconovum wrote:

Complete black cannot reflect light, it absorbed the entire spectrum of light. So why the reflection in your baked version is because, your 100% black is either not actually 100% anymore, or probably due to some processing or lack of on the part of VP pertaining to playfields.

you can’t be serious with this one. From your definition a black car wouldn’t show an reflections at all or it was… not black enough. What you say here is only valid for completely unglossy materials like velvet or so.

If some material shows refelctions or not is only defined by the physical property of this surface and not the color. Like in glossy or non glossy displays. And if you look at reflections at VPX we are dealing with a glossy surface, because the reflections are completely clear and unscattered. The only difference between bright and dark glossy surfaces is, that we percieve them better at dark colors than at bright colors, but that’s only our eyes. Every light ray does exactly the same no matter what color.

For the baked in stuff, I absolutely agree with all points described here and do not state at all that baking in is a good practice, from the first line I wrote here btw. Of course there are numerous advantages like flexibility, the playfield is available in a clean form and so on when you seperate them on a ramp flasher or whatever.

Nevertheless my assumption, that they can hide reflections was correct as proven by the experiment.

Taken together I’d say yes, seperate them and I think I will for future tables, if I make some. The advantages are bigger than the effect of covering reflections and after all “It doesn’t matter how as long as it looks cool it’s ok” My final 2 cents

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[bord]

Dark wrote:

In order to capture only the shadows I apply the shadow matter material to the PF or a flat plane the same size as the PF I then select everything else and in the object options I set them all to not be ‘visible to camera’ that way I only get the shadows. How the shadows look, how blurry or focused depends on the type of lighting used, the position of the light and how far away the light is among other factors.

Unfortunately Blender users are SOL on this technique at present. The newest release candidate has a Shadow Layer option added (finally) but it doesn’t show other light. Nice shadows, but no response to GI etc. There are workarounds but they are complicated…

 

Attachments:

1. 

   shadow-layer-sample.png
   

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[HauntFreaks]

simple tables only need simple shadow, IMO….
easypeasy … no reason to overthink it… and in this example you can see the reflections are visible…

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[BorgDog]

I think we need to have a name that table contest by showing only the shadows 

- Star Wars Wedgehead cab build

- Alien Star Resurrection!

 

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[nFozzy]

bord wrote:

Unfortunately Blender users are SOL on this technique at present. The newest release candidate has a Shadow Layer option added (finally) but it doesn’t show other light. Nice shadows, but no response to GI etc. There are workarounds but they are complicated…

You could probably get away with just a basic lambert if the shadow material isn’t working. I don’t know how it would work though, it would combine both environment and GI shadows. Separating the two would involve rendering two different shadow layers. I don’t see the advantage of doing GI this way compared to the usual GI masking or lightmaps, which handles light and shadows at the same time.

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[arconovum]

BorgDog wrote:

I think we need to have a name that table contest by showing only the shadows

   

You need to login in order to like this post: click here

[Author]

Posts