View Full Version : Open GL better than LW Render

10-03-2005, 09:23 PM

you read it straight. I've UV mapped an asteroid in Modeler with a nice photo. It looks great. But when I send it to Layout and render it none of the detail of the photo renders out. It just looks like a very bland brown rock. Where did the details go? The Open GL in layout is terrible as well as the render.

What gives?


Captain Obvious
10-04-2005, 12:15 AM
Post screen shots of how it looks in Modeler, your surface settings, how it looks in Layout and the resulting render.

10-04-2005, 02:29 AM
Hi there,

you haven't by any chance got an alpha channel left switched on for your image, have you? That would just stop it showing up and show only the base colour of your object. Check it out in the image editor.



10-04-2005, 09:18 AM
Try setting Mipmap Quality to "off" either in the Image Editor or Surface Editor.


10-07-2005, 08:14 AM

Sorry for the delay. Yes, the Mipmap setting was on high. Turning it off did the trick. BTW, what is Mipmapping for?


10-07-2005, 01:39 PM
This sounds crazy to me, I'm currently rendering a whole bunch of asteroids, only one large one has UV's the rest have an image map applied cubically, and they all have Mip Mapping set to high and look terrific both in open GL and in the render, Would post image to prove it but can't FTP to my web space at the moment due to my IP's latest maintenance botch ups :(

10-07-2005, 03:43 PM
MIP Mapping is a technique of reducing the resolution of textures as they get farther from the camera. This saves processor time, improves anti-aliasing, and reduces moire patterns in distant textures. For example, if an object is 100km away from the camera, there's usually no reason to try to render every pixel in its surface texture, so a reduced resolution texture can be used. On the other hand, if it's 1m away, you want to render every detail.

My guess is that the "asteroid" from the original post is really a planetoid modeled at approximately true size and placed far enough from the camera to see the whole thing, so MIP Mapping comes into play. Since the rendering is simulating a photograph taken through a telescope, the default MIP Mapping (which assumes both close and far geometry) is incorrect, and should either be reduced or eliminated. My guess is gerry_g's asteroids are relatively small and relatively close to the camera.


10-07-2005, 04:03 PM
My guess is gerry_g's asteroids are relatively small and relatively close to the camera.


TRUE !!..........I don't often turn mipmapping on but in this instance I did as it seemed to improve the surface look, true some darkening occurred but this suited the mood I was after. As to drfoley's issue with lack of definition, I will point out I have grayscale copies of my image map in the luminance, ambient, specula and bump channels with assorted blending modes not to mention about six different gradients maps applied, hope he's not just relying on an image map in the coulour channel