PSPS, having the extra detail contrast in the diffuse/ambient makes the surface look a lot better with Racer's light system on cars...
I'm not sure if the textures I have here are right or not but I'm using values from above for the diffuse (0.04 > 0.12 reflectance >> rgb gamma space as described), and also using about 150a for the worn areas and 114a for the less worn areas in the alpha map.
Given that the influence via gloss/wear is tunable, I seem to be finding that I'd want to set a gloss of at least 50a as a default value even for fresh asphalt with this detail map we are using.
And as soon as I get near 150a I think I'm nearing the limit of how glossy a real road ever looks... maybe 175a tops.
At that point the specular is pretty tight for asphalt in my view.
So I guess it maybe makes sense to use those values as a guide to re-range the wear map influence?
Make 0a how it is at 50a currently, and make 175a how it is at 255a currently.
Then when we are authoring the wear map and it's gone smooth (no normal map influence left) it'll be smooth about as shiny as it currently is at 175a and it'll all tie together nicely?
But part of me can't help but think it still doesn't look glaring enough... My photo wasn't even late on an evening with a low sun and yet the specular dominated the appearance of the material but wasn't confined to a sharp spot and was actually quite soft and dispersed.
Maybe this is all down to the tone mapping and auto-exposure though...? Again this is where having real imagery at known exposures vs Racer exposures would be really valuable in giving us some good reference materials.
Maybe the tone mapping is just giving our 'eyes' a break and reducing the impact of the high intensity values making them look to subtle?
Just trying to figure in the dark when finding the right values for textures is not a good idea
I'm not sure how good Forza 4 is, but this specular for example is super powerful and whited out but it's not sharp @ 58s into the video...
Then again maybe that is wrong?
This image is pretty dark exposure but the specular is 100% dominant here and also soft
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w289/Fleaver/Random/ShinyRoad.jpg
Really hard to get a gauge on it but I just have a gut feeling that the gloss seems to need to go too high (and thus sharp) before specular power gets up...
Hmmm
Dave
I'm not sure if the textures I have here are right or not but I'm using values from above for the diffuse (0.04 > 0.12 reflectance >> rgb gamma space as described), and also using about 150a for the worn areas and 114a for the less worn areas in the alpha map.
Given that the influence via gloss/wear is tunable, I seem to be finding that I'd want to set a gloss of at least 50a as a default value even for fresh asphalt with this detail map we are using.
And as soon as I get near 150a I think I'm nearing the limit of how glossy a real road ever looks... maybe 175a tops.
At that point the specular is pretty tight for asphalt in my view.
So I guess it maybe makes sense to use those values as a guide to re-range the wear map influence?
Make 0a how it is at 50a currently, and make 175a how it is at 255a currently.
Then when we are authoring the wear map and it's gone smooth (no normal map influence left) it'll be smooth about as shiny as it currently is at 175a and it'll all tie together nicely?
But part of me can't help but think it still doesn't look glaring enough... My photo wasn't even late on an evening with a low sun and yet the specular dominated the appearance of the material but wasn't confined to a sharp spot and was actually quite soft and dispersed.
Maybe this is all down to the tone mapping and auto-exposure though...? Again this is where having real imagery at known exposures vs Racer exposures would be really valuable in giving us some good reference materials.
Maybe the tone mapping is just giving our 'eyes' a break and reducing the impact of the high intensity values making them look to subtle?
Just trying to figure in the dark when finding the right values for textures is not a good idea
I'm not sure how good Forza 4 is, but this specular for example is super powerful and whited out but it's not sharp @ 58s into the video...
Then again maybe that is wrong?
This image is pretty dark exposure but the specular is 100% dominant here and also soft
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w289/Fleaver/Random/ShinyRoad.jpg
Really hard to get a gauge on it but I just have a gut feeling that the gloss seems to need to go too high (and thus sharp) before specular power gets up...
Hmmm
Dave