Ok... just to make sure, I decided to double-check a few things in game regarding scaling and the use of chibis. After further examination, here are my observations:
- I used chibis only, tested original fields scaling vs. revised realistic scaling. It turns out that realistic scaling isn't really detrimental to the use of chibi models (my
earlier comments were actually flawed, since not based on actual testing). I tested it on my finished sewer scenes (colne_be1 and colne_be3), as well as my WIPs on the Sector 5 slums. In fact the scaling from original fields doesn't do a better favor to chibi models (for instance, soda cans in the original fields are still 3/4 the size of the chibis head). In ealin1/ealin12 original fields, objects in general are way too big with respect to the chibi models on default settings (ie. without using Makou Reactor). It used to be not-so-noticeable when playing on low resolution, but in 1920 x 1080 it's a bit of an eyesore.
- In fact, one more important parameter regarding scaling and how it fits character models is about how the character size is adjusted for each field, which can be edited using Makou Reactor tool. For instance, if you wish to have realistic proportions of field and characters, you need to edit that infamous bus/weapon shop scene (mds5_w). I haven't tested what kind of scaling the chibi character would need in Makou Reactor in order to get good results for that scene.
All in all, these tests have comforted me in the realistic rescaling direction. The bottom line is: realistically scaled scenes will look better than original scale scenes for both realistic and chibi models, and for achieving the best results one will need to use Makou Reactor in either case.
Do I find this situation awfully convenient? Well, yes, and I am shameless about it 8)
Ok, a new comment popped up while I was typing this...
While in the end it is entirely up to the modelers I would like to apply my two cents. First of all, by changing the scale of the game your implying that realistic texture models will then have to be created on top of the fact that animations would have to be reworked entirely, probably from the ground up. In fact you might have to facilitate some sort of creation of a new model format entirely so that we can actually animate the models using modern standards rather than cutting them up into pieces.
Secondly, this isn't just a minor deviation from a rigid framework but an entire reimagining of the projects goals. From the the start TA has been about accurately recreated the graphics based on their original artwork and proportions. To go from a faithful recreation to scale realism is at odds with the very core philosophy of the project.
Now to be clear, I would thoroughly enjoy playing either project in the end and I am not saying any of this to pick sides. More to illustrate that if you want to continue in this direction you might want to consider changing the name of this project to reflect the change in philosophy and leadership. Furthermore the implication of work involved compounds exponentially if your goal is to actually bring the project to absolute visual consistency (because of model animations, probably walk meshes and any other unforeseen issue that arises in changing scale). Not to mention the fact that many field scenes have already been worked in TA style and would have to be redone again to fit the new scale.
Lastly, just in my opinion, if I were to choose I would prefer an artistic recreation if your going to stick with the core game-play mechanics such as prerendered backgrounds, text interactions and everything that implies. However I would prefer an accurate scale recreation if we could somehow break from prerendered backgrounds in the future and add in voices and more complex world dynamics like a controllable camera and a new model format.
Anyway that's just how I feel about it.
The character modelling side of Team Avalanche has been down for a long while now, and as far as I am aware there is no active contributor at all. As far as I am concerned, TA's work should now be solely focused on 3d modelling of fields for HD rendering, and that's it (this scope alone is insanely huge, probably more than I can chew). Practically, that's actually what's been going here for more than a year anyway. My aim would be to rather team up with other people or teams working in other areas (I was thinking of Kladarasha's characters, Bloodshot's HD battle fields, etc.), trying to pick the best of what's out there and work in correspondence with them. If people feel like we should make some official notification, I don't mind.
With that in mind, it's mostly up to the character modellers to work on the character's animation, not something we have to address in Team Avalanche. Then, when you mention that the work involved increases because I have to check visual consistency, walkmesh and layering, well I'm already doing all that. One last thing is: there are actually very few scenes which have been actually completed and released. So the amount of work which would need to be done to "fit the new scale" would be rather minimal (I think it would only involve rescaling a few items in anaho's finished scenes of Mideel), all the other completed scenes (by yours truly) either have already undergone the process, or are going to be reworked anyway (for instance, I need to rework all the texturing of eals1 and ealin1/ealin12 to be able to render them with Cycles, revisiting scaling won't be a lot of work in comparison).
Among the possible change of scope, what I would like to achieve is a relatively high visual consistency between fields, combat, and FMVs. That is not like it was made in the original game, but I do believe the visual discrepancies from the original were mostly due to technical limitations rather than artistic choice. For that matter, Square tried to address this issue in their following iterations of the franchise (fields and battle models were the same as early as FF VIII - and gradually they tended to try to match field with FMVs).
One other thing: our work (at least mine) on pre-rendered background won't be compatible with the concept of a dynamic camera, for 2 reasons: a/ so far I have been working with no restrain on poly counts whatsoever. The modelling logic behind making objects which need to be displayed dynamically would be totally different (and probably imply more work). b/ Things which are off camera on the fields need only a very coarse modelling/texturing (they only interact on the basis of their reflection and shadows, so no need to spend much time on that). If you want to model entire districts like in current open world games, it's a completely different ball of game.
As one last remark, I would like to reiterate that if TA's job is to make strict HD replicates of original fields, your own project would make TA's endeavor rather pointless (not blaming you there, your work is pretty awesome).
So I'll put it plainly: if you feel like my vision is a departure from the original scope, then I would very much like to change the scope. Now the questions would be: Do I need someone's green light to proceed (most likely SpooX's, but who else?)? If so, is it necessary to create a thread to discuss about it?
