Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I came across a mention (can't remember where) that the normal map in Heroes 5 doesn't work (or cannot be applied/used).
Accordingly, I would like to ask those who have worked with materials for models in Heroes 5: which maps will work? To be specific, I need Base Color, Metallic, Roughness, Normal, and possibly Emission later on.
Is it possible to use all of them? Or do Heroes 5 only digest one material? Base color? I am no artist by any means, so I definitely won't be able to paint them.
The metallic effect is present... roughness needs to be added!
By the way, look for topics from the respected comrade zahar0z - he uses a sophisticated editor to create textures - you'll automatically get the roughness!
By the way, look for topics from the respected comrade zahar0z - he uses a sophisticated editor to create textures - you'll automatically get the roughness!
I meant, can this be connected separately, or should it all be on one texture? Because when I was browsing the game's folders, I noticed that there is only one texture per model. So, if I have several textures for a model (diffuse/base color), (metallic), (roughness), can I only connect one?
In general, this is what interests me.
And the sophisticated editor for creating textures is this program (as I already wrote, I don't know how to draw, but you don't have to draw in it, you can use already created materials with roughness)
Only use the basic diffuse. You can add specular (metallic, or whatever they call it here, gloss) to give it a shine, and it looks pretty good, but it creates serious, ugly bugs with the shadows. I decided not to use gloss.
Overall, I recommend rendering the textures for the heroes in advance.
I use Substance Painter for this (it's that fancy editor that Psatha was talking about, but it's actually not more complicated than Photoshop).
But you can also render combined textures in your Blender; I don't know how, but I know it's possible.
Added 3 minutes ago
By the way, roughness is not an in-game texture.
Regarding emissive (i.e., glow), you can create glow effects in the game. Unfortunately, you can't do it with a texture. There seems to be a self-illuminate value, but it doesn't seem to do anything on its own.
We need to find out more precisely about the different texture parameters within the game from those who have worked with it. I remember a large text source that wrote a lot about this and documented many things. For some reason, it's lost again.
Added 4 minutes ago
By the way, you can only output one texture from Substance starting with version 18.3. Which is higher than what you have.
Also, don't forget to generate maps for Substance's internal workings before applying materials. That is, curvature, normal, and ambient occlusion. Then use at least smart materials, and you'll have nice wear and tear on the edges of the model and shadows in the shadows.
P.S. You might already be doing this, but I'm just saying it just in case
[U]by the way, with Substance, you can only output to a single texture starting from version 18.3. Well, you have it above. Also, don't forget to generate maps for Substance's internal work before applying materials. That is, curvature, normal, and ambient occlusion. Then, use at least smart materials, and you'll have nice wear and tear on the model's edges and shadows in the shadows. P.S. Maybe you're already doing this, but just in case, I'm saying it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I generate the maps BEFORE. And of course, I mainly work with smart materials because I can't draw, and they do everything for me xD
But I haven't found any information about being able to output everything into a single map. I export it as several maps. Separately, yes, you can choose different export versions there for Unity, UE4, and a bunch of others. But still, it doesn't pack everything into one map.
By the way, I saw your signature and read about the changes. The idea with the size seems very, very controversial, and frankly, it's not a good one. First, regarding the value of the battle arena, as the developers wrote in their diaries, the arena becomes more valuable when it's smaller, not larger. Think about it, and you'll realize that this is quite logical. For example, with the large creatures. The fact that it might be inconvenient for you as a player to deploy them, and the fact that there's more area available for the opponent to attack them, all of this seems like something bad, but in reality, it forces you to find a way out of the situation. If this isn't the case, the game becomes easier and, most importantly, monotonous. The moral of the story is that the game shouldn't be convenient in every way; there should be pre-created problems that you, as a player, will solve. If everything is simplified, you'll end up with 4 resources, convertible cities, and all the bonuses from all buildings being available for recruitment in any of the forts, basically like in Heroes 6. Secondly, in my opinion, +1 to speed doesn't compensate for the reduction because (I'm not sure about this, but I think it's like this) when a large creature calculates its movement, it counts 4 squares as one step. If someone knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong.
In general, maybe I don't understand the idea; what's the point of reducing the size of the creatures? If it's just to have more space, then it only sounds like a good thing at first glance. Think about it yourself: if you hypothetically increase the size of the arena, what would change? Battles would become longer and more tedious; attacking units would lose at least one turn moving before they can attack, and ranged units would become more valuable and need to be rebalanced. Plus, considering that there's more space, it becomes harder to make a mistake, harder to execute some tactical maneuver using the proximity of units. That's all. I don't think it's "better"; at best, it's just "different," and most likely, it will even be "worse."
Added 1 minute ago Waterfall_13
You really don't know what useful things you might find on the vast expanses of the internet by chance. =)
Secondly, in my opinion, +1 to speed doesn't compensate for the reduction because (I'm not entirely sure, but I think it works like this) when a large creature calculates its movement, it counts 4 squares as one step. If I'm wrong, someone who knows better can correct me.
So, what's the point? When something moves one square, it moves one square. Another issue is that large size is actually a disadvantage for a creature in most cases (sometimes you can use a large creature to block the enemy's path or prevent them from effectively using dragon's breath, but these are exceptions). Therefore, removing the "large creature" property and giving +1 speed in return seems questionable. Especially for liches – imagine how much easier it is now to deploy them in the arena without exposing them to fast-moving enemy creatures. But overall, these are interesting changes.
What do you mean? When something moves to a cell, it moves to a cell.
Is this accurate information? I thought they calculate speed in "steps," where a small step is 1 cell and a large step is 2. Am I wrong?
Added 1 minute ago Ment
That's why removing the "large creature" property and giving +1 speed for it seems questionable. Especially for liches – imagine how much easier it is now to deploy them in the arena without exposing them to fast-moving enemy creatures.
Yes, in my opinion, this is one of those cases where simpler means worse.
By the way, I saw your signature and read about the changes. The idea with the size seems very, very questionable and, frankly, unsuccessful. Firstly, regarding the value of the battle arena, as the developers wrote in their diaries, the arena becomes more valuable when it is smaller, not larger. Think about it a little, and you'll understand that this is quite logical. For example, with those large creatures. The fact that it may be inconvenient for you as a player to deploy them and that there is more area available for the opponent to attack them seems like something bad, but in reality, it forces you to find a way out of the situation. If this is not the case, the game becomes easier and, most importantly, monotonous. The moral of the story is that the game shouldn't be convenient in every way; there should be pre-created problems that you will solve as a player. If everything is simplified, you'll end up with 4 resources, convertible cities, and all the bonuses from all buildings being recruitable in any of the forts, in short, like in Heroes 6. Secondly, in my opinion, +1 to speed does not compensate for the reduction because (I'm not sure about this, but I think it's like this) when a large creature calculates its movement, it counts 4 squares as one step. If someone knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong.
In general, maybe I don't understand the idea; what's the point of reducing the size of the creatures? If it's just to have more space, then it only sounds good at first glance. Think about it yourself: if you hypothetically increase the size of the arena, what would change? Battles would become longer and more tedious; attacking units would lose at least one turn moving before attacking, and ranged units would become more valuable and need to be rebalanced. Plus, considering that there is more space, it becomes more difficult to make a mistake, and it becomes more difficult to execute some tactical maneuver using the proximity of units. That's all. I don't think this is "better"; at best, it's just "different," and most likely, it will even be "worse."
Well, I had this vision, I tried it, and I liked it. It definitely didn't get worse. But of course, this is just my opinion. I think we can discuss this in a separate thread sometime when I create it =) P.S. You can, of course, complain about liches and centaurs... But in terms of gameplay, if I'm honest, in this situation, I think unicorns and hellhounds won. You really feel fear when they are nearby; they squeeze through and deal a lot of damage.
Is this accurate information? I thought they calculate speed in "steps," where a small step is 1 cell and a large step is 2. Am I wrong?
The improved lizards from Dungeon have a speed of 8 – and with that speed, they reach the enemy formation exactly when the enemy is a large creature. The map size is 12. So, it's accurate.
I think we can discuss this in a separate thread sometime when I create it.
zahar0z Well, I had this vision, I tried it, and I liked it. It definitely didn't make things worse. But that's just my opinion, of course. I think we can discuss this in a separate thread sometime when I create it =) P.S. You can, of course, complain about liches and centaurs... But in terms of gameplay, honestly, in this situation, I think the unicorns and hell horses actually benefited the most. You really feel a sense of dread when they're nearby; they break through and deal a lot of damage. =)
I tried to explain in a reasoned way what the objective downside of this decision is, rather than just saying "I don't like it because I don't like it").
Added after 33 seconds Ment
Great, we'll be following the updates!
+1
Added after 55 seconds Ment
The enhanced lizards from the League have a speed of 8 – and with that speed, they reach the enemy formation just as they arrive, if it's a large creature. The field size is 12. So, I was wrong about that.
Waterfall_13
psatkha
