Matth85

Of all the ways they could do this, this has to be one of the best and I agree with it. The average modder won't join the club since they aren't nearly good enough and modders who don't have the time to go through a full development cycle with alpha and beta deadlines, with testers from bethesda. We'll most likely see high quality DLCs with very minimal cost to the "free market" of mods we got now. It's more of an addition instead of a replacement like the old system was. Now we don't need to deal with people taking mods off of the nexus to put them for sale, we won't have to deal with somebody stealing asset and claiming it was theirs without anybody checking up on it, we won't deal with people spending 5 minute kit bashing and wanting 50 bucks for it and we won't have to deal with a trillion and a half nude mods up for sale. The only issue I see, is that the majority of mods will probably be weapons, armor and settlement mods(for FO4). Anything bigger is going to take too much time and is going to be difficult to implement. We'll probably see a few of those expansion-level mods from a professional external team though! This is assuming Bethesda actually got a real team working on this, and this isn't, a "fire and forget" operation with a skeleton crew working and 5 Indian guys doing customer service.

You're welcome Algabar! I am not actually a 100% sure how the engine tackles it, but I do know how game engines in general deals with it, so I am just assuming. I got 2 theories: The first is how some engines deals with textures beyond 0-1 space - instance out more textures. The second is that the nifs themself got a value to control things. This might seem like an obvious thing to saty, but that would mean each .nif has incredible control over the shader, and there is no safety guard on the .nif like there is on just about everything else. That would be incredible bad design and horrible encapsulation. You'd want the engine to deal with the object file(nif in our case) and let the engine create a internal file where it controls these things. That way the object itself is just the model, but the shading is done by the engine. For us it looks like the .nif might call the engine and the engine does what the .nif says. The second one could be plausible given our work with .nif is a result of nifskope and the likes, which is just a dump of settings into a UI that we get to play with. For all I know Bethesda actually work with .obj files and .nif are created locally in their Creation Kit, and we simply use a missmatched version and somehow got it to work. In the end, though, it amounts to the same thing: Cranking up the settings cost a lot. I can't say for sure why, and I have no plan of trying to deal with niflib ever again. My advice is to always design your texture to stand on "default" values. Then you can create variations quickly, and you can control the performance cost a bit better. So take my assumptions a "Matths eduated guess" and not "This is how it works!" :p

We all start with a tad of grayscaling :wink: For more effect, try to contrast the living s*** out of the specular map, then check in-game. You'll quickly realize the power of a good specularity map. https://imageshack.com/i/ipEvIJCKp something I did a while ago (sometimes in 2014-2015 I reckon). specular map: https://gyazo.com/be27f20e6ec47e104d75eea89855bd8f It's not the best, I admit! That, too, was a "grayscale, levels, GG". It ended up looking pretty good nevertheless! I am referring to the golden inlays for the most part. Very thing, long, UVW can be annoying to deal with. But, again, more personal preference from my side! I would unwrap the whole hilt as a whole to make it easier to work with, and to make any manual texturing on it feel more natural. The general rule of thumb is to split UVW shells at 90° angles, but I personally don't follow that too much myself! With Quixel and apps to paint directly on models, seams aren't as big of a problem as they used to be. In any case, just keep at it! Get the AO on top of the albedo, invert the roughness(or grayscale + levels the diffuse) and utilize the metal map as a mask for the metallic mask, and you've roughly made a PBR texture to a skyrim-supported texture. It takes some tweaks, but it's doable! On non metallic objects it can be pretty much automated.

Allright, let's take a look. At first glance it doesn't look wrong. It looks much what I expect it to look like. The lack of crispiness isn't so much because of your difuse, but rather the specular level. Ignoring reflection for now, which is dealt with via the environment map, you need to crisp up the specular levels to give it the metal sharpness. This also goes for most materials: The specular levels, just like the roughness, defines the material. This destinction is important because PBR uses the albedo as a reflection value, whereas in traditional the diffuse has no effect on the shine or reflection. So you need to really set up the specularity. That is the single most important map, along the normal map, for a good texture. So from your current point I'd focus on the specular for a bit. Then go back and tweak the diffuse afterwards. I'd also consider lowering the contrast of the dirt on the blade, and darkening the goldish looking part to look more like the darkest variation. You could probably darken the whole texture a little, but then your dark metallic color might lose some details! A few more pointers, if you are okay with that. This isn't strictly PBR2traditionalTexture related, but: 1) Utilize your 0-1 UV space! Cram things close together, and utilize symmetry. Unless both sides of something is seen often, you might as well just texture one half with twice the resolution! You could also take the blades, turn one of them upside down so you get them closer to each other, then set it to a 45° to utilize as much as you can off the space. The goal ios for everything to have equal texture density, which simply means that when you use a checker pattern texture, the patterns should be perfectly square for everything in the same size. When in doubt, though, prioritize big objects or parts that are filled with details. 2) I would personally not remove the UVW from the middle of the hilt. You'd get a smoother normal and it would be easier to naturally texture withing it. You could utilize color maps to simply mask it off for full control. This is more subjective, though, but it's based on the idea of not having too many small UVW shells all over. That can get frustrating to deal with when you need to manually fix something!

Play with some levels on your AO map if you need to crisp it up. Alternatively you could take your normal map and create a cavity map from it, and try to utilize that. It all depends on the maps, to be honest. If you got a very detailed normal map, but your AO map is a simply high to low bake, you might want to create an AO from the normal map (I believe XNormal got a converter), then blend your 2 AO together and finally overlay that, with some levels adjustments, on top of the albedo map. If you throw up an example of what you are attempting to do, I can guide you further!

Let's do a quick rundown of the differences: Traditional texturing uses a Difuse, Specular level, specular color, environment, gloss and normal map. Skyrim doesn't use gloss or specular color maps. PBR texturing uses an Albedo, Mettalic, AO, Roughness and normal map. You can convert from one to the other, although it requires some manual work. Albedo -> Difuse. The Albedo is simply a difuse map WITHOUT any shading. The simple way to overlay the Ambient Occlusion over the diffuse, and possibly throw in a curature/cavity map overlay if you need even more shading. Or the other way around: Remove all highlights and shadows from the diffuse to get the albedo. Specular -> Here you got 2 choices. You can take the difuse map, grayscale it, and play with levels. Or you can take the Roughness map and invert it. This works wonders for most materials, but it falls a bit short on certain metals. Normal map -> is the same. Gloss map -> Not used in Skyrim, but you could generally get this from the roughness as well. Environment map -> Our metallic map of traditional texturiong. You can rely on a combination of the roughness and the metallic map for this. The metallic map in itself is mostly pure black or white, where white means "This is metal!" and black means "This is not metal!". A environment map works in a similar way, but it's also vastly different. You can get away with using the metal map as a mask, then using the roughness or diffuse + grayscaling it, and simply playing with levels. As a note to the above poster: Be careful when playing with certain nifskope values. Increasing the value of certain things, such as the amount of shine or reflction, is insanely taxing on the system. You are pretty much telling the engine to render out your image x amounts extra per draw call, taking exponentially more resources. If you want more reflection, create that in your textures! Check Bethesdas .nif for settings. Don't go much above that. Even with the extra memory of special edition, things can go pretty bad pretty quick! As an example: I had a 2k texture map set for https://imageshack.com/i/f00NM9rNp . To make it more shiny, I increased some settings in nifskope. It got more shiny -- but the game would have noticeable frame drop when doing any sudden moves. Furthermore, the reason skyrim uses very low res cube maps is partly the age of game, but also because the artstyle in Skyrim is not-so-shiny. Most things have a dull shine, or a shine that lacks reflection. For that you only need to reflect -something-. It's also to avoid the whole issue with reflecting something that is not there, since the engine doesn't calculate reflection real-time and rely on Cube Maps. If you want something real shiny, don't tinker too much with nifskope. Instead create your own custom cube map with your own decently sized environment map. The effect is a lot better, it's a lot less taxing, and you get a better base to tinker on within Nifskope!

Go into the CK, place placeholder items on the corners Select said things, click F2 and export them as a a .fbx. Open them in 3ds max, import the boundaries and set them up. Export them. See if that doesn't work.

Heya! Have anyone manage to figure it out all out? I am currently trying to recreate the system, or at least branch out the original, for a few pet projects of mine. Although I have hit brickwall after brickwall. I see keywords, yet I don't see where the keywords relate to actual data, and I see Default Objects and constructible objects, but I can't see how it all connects. In short, what I am doing: I am planning to add a new workable station where you can customize a specific turret. Going into it, I realize this requires Attach Points (ap_ keywords), which I also assume is done in the .nif(connection points, perhaps. Why a Parent/Child relationship though?). So, I figured I'd try to reverse engineer their whole system and see if I can't make it out. I started with the WorkbenchRobot from the Automatron DLC since it's closest to what i want to achieve. heck, I could get away by simply adding a new frame to that workbench. Anyways, What I have gathered so far: 1) constructible objects creates the OMOD(mod) which holds the model, stats and it's where you specify which attach point(keyword) to be used. --> What is the signifcance of these keywords? I can't find them in the nifs, so where is the connection between them and the actual attach point of the model? How can I create a new point? Why can't i create a new keyword and use it in the list? --> I assume the keywords somehow translates, so when you click an entry you get the right omod. I can't see the connection, though. Hmrph. 2) The entries are done via keywords in the TopListSub and TopList --> TopListSublist are positional linked. The entries from the sublist depends on the position in relation to the toplist. aka: if you switch the formlists of Head and torso in the sublist, all heads will be found under "Torso" and all torso under "Head" --> Changing name of keyword (the actual name parameter) in the toplist changes the category name. --> ap_bot_x are the main category (aka: No Torso, Assaultron Torso, Protectron torso). The other keywords are related to this one (we got ap_bot_AssaultronArmorSlotTorso and similiar for rear/front for all 4 types, 2 mod slots, 2 armor slots and a misc slot. In game we get the base, rear, front and misc. This means if you pick the assaultron torso, the 2 assaultron keywords kick in and you get a new list of choices). --> How does this keyword relate to each other? Where do they relate to each other? How can I edit them? --> The last entry of the head formlist, after I delete most of it, is the ap_bot_Head, which is the same that is under the TopList. This list contains no head, assaultron head, protectron head, Robobrain head and sentry head. How can a keyword do that? -->EDIT: there seem to be more keywords that dictates this list as well. Ap_bot_headArmorPam, ap_bot_HeadArmorAssaultron, etc. So ap_bot_head dictates the head choice list, where ap_bot_headarmor are located. --> Adding a new ap_bot_test entry does nothing. It does not add a new entry to the toplist, or to any list under. --> How are these points decided, where are they specified and why can't I add a new category? --> Even if I use an already existing one, nothing happens. I even threw it at a random spot in the toplist, which should screw the positionals for the sublist. Nope, no change. 3) Default Object holds some information. For example: RobotWorkBench_TopSlotList - "A list of form lists used to fill the second level of slots.". --> Why can't I make my own Default object? The only settings I can choose are irrelevant. --> What does it do? I can't see where it connect to anything. It holds the formlist of the keywords, but where is it called and why isn't the formlist just used? --> Why is there one for Torso and legs, but not Head and Arms? --> Why is it used for companions such as Curie? 4) Just a question: The first entry, asking which automatrons to edit or create a new one; Where is it? I want to add a new frame to it. It's not a keyword -- or at least I haven't found it, and it is not a Message(Or I haven't found it). Could this be in a script? But activating the workbench doesn't seem to start a quest. Unless I have missed something. So, basically, I am wondering: has anyone figured it all out, or at least has gotten a bit further than me in this madness? EDIT: Haven't managed to sort out how to add a new frame or add in new catgories, but I did manage to create a new entry. Just connect the Object Mod to one of the ap_bot_x points, and it goes in the list. I wonder if the entry is dealt with via a quest script? Still no clue how to deal with new categories. They seem related to attach point, which I can't edit. Is the keyword related to the nifs, or is it hardcoded? hm... I also noticed you can specify what type of bench you are on. Does this mean a completely custom bench is impossible, because these options are hard coded? Yikes. Alas, thankfully the entry point of the robot bench is flexible enough to be of use (since you get a prompt as you enter, which could be edited) Assuming these points are either nif related (not started looking into it yet), or hard coded, it means I'll have to see if i can't at least temporarily rename the categories. I still need to find that first message, and see how that is dealt with! Seems like a simple messagebox + script. but.. eh... I can't seem to find it.

I like to think of it as a very old car with lots of ducttape, and on the side it is written "BUGATTI". It's barely holding together, badly optimized and just s***. (Witcher 3 runs at constant 60fps at max. Fallout 4 varies between 30 and 60 at high, while looking worse, having worse LoD and it's smaller in size.) Anyways. We use a tangent based normal maps for the majority of game engines I am aware of. Though knowing the difference between the types is not a bad idea!

Could you elaborate on your question? Just bake a standard normal map. At worst you need to invert the green channel. Don't mess around with anything else in regards to normals; I doubt it's supported by the engine. The creation engine, which both Fallout 4 and Skyrim uses, is made from the gamebyro engine. Now, I won't pretend to know what Bethesda has done in Fallout 4; I am not modding it untill we get the tools(It seem absolutely pointless). I know they talked about PBR, and I know their engine does use PBR technology (Judging by the looks of the game). First of: PBR is not a "EVERYONE DOES IT!" thing. It's new - very new. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and recall the year of 2011 as it being first discussed about, though I forgot where I read that, and it's being integrated into popular engines in 2014/2015. Anyways, Bethesda has/had to change their whole render structure to use PBR. This is not a simple switch: This is a fundamental change that requires a lot of work. It's easier to build an engine to support PBR, than it is to change an engine to use PBR. Especially with an engine with such old structure as the Gamebryo engine mokcup they use- Neither Unity nor Unreal Engine is similar to Bethesdas engine. These are engines made to be engines, while Bethesda uses an engine made for their games. Learn one if you want; it won't make working with the CK/GECK any easier, sadly. I'd recommend looking into either, though. It's a good practice to get used to different engines. With that in mind, this is not the place to ask about Unity or Unreal Engine. As a side note: Do yourself a favor and learn to texture without substance painter/design/Quixel Suite before using them. It might seem odd, but I am pulling my hairs out when the new breed of texture artist needs help, and they are useless beyond these tools. Sometimes you need to get to the bones of stuff and really understand it before you speed things up ;)

It got one, or two, overhauls since the 2008 version(Which was the first one I tried). But that's mostly related to the visuals, and graphical modelling tools. The UVW did get some aditions, but nothing gamechanging, over the years. So... it shouldn't be that different.

Let's try again. Hello, my name is Matth. I am an experienced 3d artist that uses 3ds max and an upcoming c++ programmer. I have been modding since the CS in Oblivion came out, which includes fallout 3 and NV. Now. Your wall of text is not coherent. You are not asking a question anywhere, nor are you making a point. You keep saying gamers are dick - in multiple threads, while you are the one being the offending party. You complain about this forum, yet you are the one pissing of everyone. May I ask why? If you can churn down your messy non coherent wall of text into a question, then I might be able to help. and try to tone down the hostility. It shows bad character.

What?

I have absolutely no idea what this post was about. With that said. 3ds max got student versions which does not require a student email and they do not check it. If that helps your... uh.. problem... Or whatever.

I am aware. I was referring to the work required, and to put it into perspective. Point is, it's not simple. PBR texturing is a completely different workflow. You can't "convert" the games. Nor can you convert models from mods.