how to create textures?

[chuck_starchaser]

No; don't change your material to solid shading! EVER!
All models should be globally smooth shaded. Edges that need to be sharp should be Marked Sharp, which the Edge Split modifier will make them look sharp.
Using solid shading splits every vertex in the model. Kills the gpu dead.

Multires levels 1 and 2 could be your medium and top LOD's.
Level 4 or higher you use off-line to bake a normal map.
Indeed, the normal map IS a texture representing normal modifiers; so baking a normalmap will indeed make your ship look smoother.

There can be other holes, caused by bugs in subsurf/multires.

We'll talk about it later; gotta go to bed now.

[lee]

No; don't change your material to solid shading! EVER!

Why not?

All models should be globally smooth shaded.

Hmm ... If the model is that smooth, wouldn't it need too much processing power to be rendered in-game? But then, it's being rendered in blender just fine.

Edges that need to be sharp should be Marked Sharp, which the Edge Split modifier will make them look sharp.

Ok, but this model doesn't have sharp edges

Using solid shading splits every vertex in the model. Kills the gpu dead.

It works fine for me. When I apply Multires, I can't extrude faces anymore.

Multires levels 1 and 2 could be your medium and top LOD's.
Level 4 or higher you use off-line to bake a normal map.

Hm, why would I want to make it more difficult? It seems that I can work without Multires just fine and apply that later as needed.

We'll talk about it later; gotta go to bed now.

Ok. Sleep well!

[chuck_starchaser]

No; don't change your material to solid shading! EVER!

Why not?

All models should be globally smooth shaded.

Hmm ... If the model is that smooth, wouldn't it need too much processing power to be rendered in-game? But then, it's being rendered in blender just fine.

You're getting mixed up with terminology. In Wings, "mooth" means adding polygons. In Blender there are 3 different things:
1) Subsurf/multires/subdivide-smooth indeed add polygons.
2) W-menu -> Smooth doesn't add polygons, but it moves vertices to reduce curvature or spread around tension.
3) W-menu -> Set Smooth, which simply marks vertices as un-splittable. This is what I'm talking about. With Set Smooth, you're making the vertices and vertex normals to be shared between all polygons connected to it.
If you have 6 triangles sharing one vertex, the one vertex is just one vertex, and its normal is the average of the normals of all the polygons connected to it, so all the polygons shade as a single continuum. This is a lot LESS work for the videocard.
If you designate those same 6 triangles as flat-shaded, the one vertex they all share has to become 6 vertices in one place, with 6 normals, each normal being equal to the face normal of the triangle that owns that vertex split.
When a mesh is sent to the videocard, it is sent with vertex normals; not with face normals. If meshes were sent with face normals, it would indeed be *more* work to shade them smoothly than to shade them flat. It would be a huge amount of work. But meshes are sent with vertex normals, and so smooth shading is easy; whereas flat shading requires that each facet have its own, separate set of vertices.
So, suppose, for example, that you have a billboard divided into 10 columns and ten rows of quads:
With smooth shading you have 11 x 11 = 121 vertices to proces.
With flat shading, it would be 10 x 10 x 4 = 400 vertices to process.
Not even, because quads are split into triangles, so it would be...
10 x 10 x 2 x 3 = 600 vertices to process.
So, just highlight the whole ship with A, press W and click on Set Smooth.
You can make those edges that need to look sharp look sharp by using Ctrl-E -> Mark Sharp.

Edges that need to be sharp should be Marked Sharp, which the Edge Split modifier will make them look sharp.

Ok, but this model doesn't have sharp edges

That's good! I think you do have some, around those nozzles at the back (front?).

Using solid shading splits every vertex in the model. Kills the gpu dead.

It works fine for me. When I apply Multires, I can't extrude faces anymore.

I didn't say solid shading doesn't work; I said it's a lot heavier for the gpu to process.

Multires levels 1 and 2 could be your medium and top LOD's.
Level 4 or higher you use off-line to bake a normal map.

Hm, why would I want to make it more difficult? It seems that I can work without Multires just fine and apply that later as needed.

What's more difficult? And I didn't say when it should be done. You need LOD's for a model, and multires was made to do just that.

[Deus Siddis]

Note that in the more recent versions of blender they made it so that UV work you do to a model is applied to any of its subdivision surface levels.

So you can work with that subsurf modifier instead if you find multi-res too limiting in the tools it lets you use. Though using this method won't allow you to draw seams on the higher res subdivisions while the subsurf modifier is still there, so for your model you wouldn't be able to cut its UV area down the middle unless you added extra geometry manually after applying the modifier.

Whatever you do though, always keep a copy of the original model around in the same blend file, don't apply a modifier without saving a copy or convert it to a pure poly mesh whilst using the 'delete original' option.

About UV work though, you should probably clean up your mesh a little first, as you have alot of unneeded bands of edges going across the lengths of those long tube like surfaces. Try selecting a ring of those unwanted edges or their vertices and using the 'x > edge loop' command to get rid of them without having to do fill operations afterwards. Make sure it is a complete ring though otherwise the operation won't work.

[lee]

With Set Smooth, you're making the vertices and vertex normals to be shared between all polygons connected to it.

Ah, I see That's interesting ... Because when I first played around with 3D models (about 15 years ago? It took the raytracer hours or even days to render an image ...), making something "smooth" meant that it would have more surfaces (triangles) and more vertices so that it would take more processing power. Now it's the opposite, sort of.

So, just highlight the whole ship with A, press W and click on Set Smooth.
You can make those edges that need to look sharp look sharp by using Ctrl-E -> Mark Sharp.

ok

That's good because it's nicer when it's smooth. The idea was that the ship is an U-shaped tube, carrying some more or less round fuel tanks. But because it can be set to be smooth, it can even be made of a cube. There's no need for tubes, they would only make it very difficult to work on it. It's still a single cube ...

Ok, but this model doesn't have sharp edges

That's good! I think you do have some, around those nozzles at the back (front?).

Hmmm. As you mention it, I think it's what I wanted, but I didn't think of making a sharp edge.

You mean this part?



That's the engines on the rear. The tube sticking out on the front is to fill large ships with fuel or to fill the tanker itself (from a station). The tanker would stick the tube into a special "docking bay" and then the fuel would be pumped into the other ships tanks. They eventually need millions of tons of fuel, so you need an efficient way to refuel them ... Smaller ships would come to the docking bays in the "sled" and be refilled there.

However, I started with wanting to make a fin on the two rear ends of the 'U". I couldn't exactly get a fin, probably because I'd need a sharp edge for that ... But I like the outcome, and it made me reshape the whole rear end which ends up looking much better now than a plain tube would.

What's more difficult? And I didn't say when it should be done. You need LOD's for a model, and multires was made to do just that.

It would be more difficult to work with the model on a higher level of detail. On the basic level, for example, you extrude one face and get a nice, smooth thing sticking out. On a higher level of detail, you'd have to extrude more faces for the same effect, but you can't even extrude when Multires is enabled. You'd have to make that shape somehow manually.

Of course, if you need to work on very fine details, you can't do that on a low level of detail --- but in this case, the lowest level is just great because my computer is doing almost all the work for me

BTW, what happens when I export the model as it is? Will it be rendered "smooth" in VS just as in blender?

[chuck_starchaser]

BTW, what happens when I export the model as it is? Will it be rendered "smooth" in VS just as in blender?

No; you still don't get it.

You ARE looking at gazillions of polygons, right now.
Set Smooth controls only the shading.
SubSurf is adding gazillions of polygons.
If you save it as is without applying the sub-surf, you'll get just cubes and boxes; your basic mesh.
If you have smooth shading with just the basic mesh, the cubes will shade as if the facets were puffed out, but you'll still see the basic, cubist geometry.
It would look really odd.

However...

You can get it to look almost as smooth with a lower level of (applied) subsurf or multires if you bake a normalmap differencing your highest level subsurf or multires that you export, and a much higher subsurf or multires. This will correct a lot of guraud interpolation artifacts.

In any case, Set Smooth must be on. That is, shading should be continuous between facets. IOW, vertices and vertex normals should be shared between adjacent facets by default. But you do need some geometry "smoothing", or else, if you leave it just to the shading, it will just look weird. Try it: remove subsurf, and set smooth. You'll see how weird it looks. Then put subsurf back on, but crank the level up only as absolutely necessary so it stops looking too weird. Then a normalmap bake from a multires level of like 20 will give you better shading.

The only reason I advise multires over subsurf is that once you apply subsurf you cannot un-apply it. Well, you CAN Ctrl-Z, but if you save and close the file, you cannot undo to get back to the original mesh.
Multi-res lets you have multiple levels of "subsurf" tied to the original mesh, and you can export individual levels for your ship's LOD's.

[lee]

Oh, you're right. I was overlooking that I used subsurfing together with "set smooth". Without subsurfing, the model looks more cubical than smooth.

Is blender using some trick to display the model? I can zoom and pan it without delay even when it's displayed as smooth as you see it on the pictures. That must be a lot of surfaces?

[lee]

Ok, looks like this now (missing a texture):











That is one level of multires. Mesher says:

Code: Select all

0_0: 8418 faces, 8391 vertices, 0 lines, 0 tris, 8418 quads
Total faces: 8418

Would that be too much?

[chuck_starchaser]

Code: Select all

0_0: 8418 faces, 8391 vertices, 0 lines, 0 tris, 8418 quads
Total faces: 8418

Would that be too much?

No; that's perfect. Even a bit on the low-poly side of things for a large ship. 5000 vertices would be a good target for a small fighter. For a corvette sized ship you could go up to 15 or 20 k; for a frigate around 50k; for a carrier or space station 100k.
But you're probably going to be adding greebles and details, right?
Looking good (if alien as all hell ).

[lee]

Even a bit on the low-poly side of things for a large ship. 5000 vertices would be a good target for a small fighter. For a corvette sized ship you could go up to 15 or 20 k; for a frigate around 50k; for a carrier or space station 100k.

Cool I have scaled it some --- it looks pretty dangerous and fast that way. I'm not sure what's better:



As to the size, I don't know ... Before scaling, it might have been about 800 or 1200 meters long, so it would be really huge now. But then, the size would depend on how much fuel fits into the tanks so that it carries a reasonable amount. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the volume of the tanks.

It could as well be a relatively small ship, i. e. not a capital ship ...

But you're probably going to be adding greebles and details, right?

What are greebles?

The design is ambigous: It's supposed to be functional (fuel tanks, minimal hull with some struts to give it stability, an engine room, shield emitters, engines, thrusters --- some room for cargo other than fuel, a bridge and accommodations for the crew and some passengers on the upper bow decks and fuel pumps on the lower bow deck), but it turned out rather pretty. So it already has everything it needs, except for weapons. Weapons pointing to the front would go on the "wing" at the bow, but I don't know what's needed for that; otherwise, it should have some turrets.

So I don't know, what do you have in mind?

Of course, it needs a nice texture --- I need to find out how to create one.

Looking good (if alien as all hell ).

Thanks!

[Deus Siddis]

Before you move on to unwrapping this model, you might want to shelve it, create an new simpler model of a different ship and practice unwrapping on that. Because the UV work for this will be a real challenge that you might want to save for when you've had some more practice.

[chuck_starchaser]

I second Deus Siddis idea. Unwrapping this thing might not be easy. Then again, you have the advantage of having started from a simple mesh, so you can mark the seams on that mesh and they will carry over to the higher subdivision meshes.

Looks better now, with the scaling. Thing is, though; it doesn't look like a tanker to me at all; although it looks mighty interesting. A tanker would probably maximize volume rather than have thin tanks spaced out; and the tanks would probably run forward to back, rather than transversally, to minimize frontal cross-section and exposure to micrometeorite collisions. Perhaps it could be a flying shipyard, to fix other ships after a battle? In any case, I have nothing in mind; like I said, this is not my mod. You'd have to ask JackS if he's interested.

Greebles are greebles...

[lee]

Yeah, that's a good idea, I'll try texturing with a very simple model first.

It really doesn't look much like a tanker anymore after stretching ... The tanks don't run along the ship to help with preventing the fuel from sloshing around. Shields will keep off meteorites, and what difference would a wider surface area make?

It could be a cruise ship, maybe --- or have different types of outfit to choose from, ranging from fuel tanker to cruise ship to hospital to research vessel and, with minor hull modifications, even a shipyard. It could repair ships and build new stations.

Greebles can look nice, but they don't seem to make sense for a spaceship. There is more than enough room within the hull, so why would someone want to expose buildings or ship parts like that to space? They would make for weak spots and be hard to protect in battle. The smaller the surface is, the less exposure to space.

[chuck_starchaser]

Greebles can look nice, but they don't seem to make sense for a spaceship. There is more than enough room within the hull, so why would someone want to expose buildings or ship parts like that to space? They would make for weak spots and be hard to protect in battle.

If that were true, then naval warships would have smooth tops... but do they?



Tanks would not have pipes, boxes and cabling on the outside...



But it seems they do!

Even aircraft, which have to be aerodynamic, seem to have a lot of "natural greebles" growing on them...



And if you think space-ships are exceptional, then look at a real life space-ship:

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2005/08/ ... 14_big.jpg

My standard is that everything should have details down to one inch in size; even if the model is a kilometer long.
Because anything that humans make (and probably aera too) ought to have things that human hands can
grab onto, push, turn, or manipulate.
Without at least a few really small greebles, you can say the model is 100 meters long, a kilometer, 10 or 100 kilometers,
and it doesn't make an iota of difference. Size is only perceivable if there are human scale objects to use as visual references.

This ship of mine is only 300 meters long:



but to most people it looks huge. Why? Because of the details. You can "feel" the 300 meters. Even without a texture.



Here's a ship I made for PU:



120 meters long; --a corvette. But you'll see 1-inch things there, if you look hard.

Larger ships cannot have 1-inch greebles all over the place; but even a few clusters of little greebles can give the viewer a
sense of the size of the ship. This is the Bengal I was working on for WCU a couple of years ago; 700 meters long:



The question to ask is:
What's the sense of saying that some ultra-simple mesh is 20 kilometers long --or 200 meters long,
for that matter-- if you cannot *feel* it is so by looking at it; if it looks like a plastic toy?

[lee]

Greebles can look nice, but they don't seem to make sense for a spaceship. There is more than enough room within the hull, so why would someone want to expose buildings or ship parts like that to space? They would make for weak spots and be hard to protect in battle.

If that were true, then naval warships would have smooth tops... but do they?

They have a smooth hull. If it was possible to make them with smooth tops, they would be built like that. But everything that's on top is there because it's needed for a purpose --- and if it wasn't there, the top would be smooth.

Tanks would not have pipes, boxes and cabling on the outside...

It's not practical to put the antennas inside, and you can't let them untied because they would bounce around too much when driving. The tank can function without the things on the outside, and the space inside is rather limited. People eventually move around the tank to make use of the things on the outside. All that doesn't apply to a spaceship.

Even aircraft, which have to be aerodynamic, seem to have a lot of "natural greebles" growing on them...

Yeah, but only because they are required. Look at a civilian aircraft, they don't have the weapon mounts. They are making them as smooth as they can, and if you ask the engineers, they don't like having windows much and would prefer to build them without. The same is with military aircraft --- look at a bomber for example, they don't carry the bombs on the outside.

And if you think space-ships are exceptional, then look at a real life space-ship:

Obviously, they made the hull as smooth as they could.

Because anything that humans make (and probably aera too) ought to have things that human hands can
grab onto, push, turn, or manipulate.

Why? What for? Do they walk around in space suits on the outside of the hulls of capital ships all the time?

The question to ask is:
What's the sense of saying that some ultra-simple mesh is 20 kilometers long --or 200 meters long,
for that matter-- if you cannot *feel* it is so by looking at it; if it looks like a plastic toy?

You can't tell the size without reference; I don't deny that. But that doesn't mean that someone designing a ship would put greebles on it just to make it easier for someone looking at it to make an assumption about the ships size.

The question is: What are you required to have on the outside of the hull of a spaceship because it doesn't work without or because it's important enough to have it there or because you can't avoid it?

[GoldenGnu]

I can think of a thing or two... like coolers... antennas... cargo doors... repair doors... thrusters...

And the real point is that it works to show the ships size and looks cool... That's the most important part, really... It's all about look... real functionality is none-existing, as it's all fictive...

[lee]

I can think of a thing or two... like coolers... antennas... cargo doors... repair doors... thrusters...

How do you cool something in space? All you can do is somehow radiating the heat. Antennas would likely be dishes and could be of any size. Antennas that are not dishes could be of any size as well, though there is some relationship between their length and the wavelength they are designed for (Did you ever install a CB radio in a vehicle?). There are no cargo doors on the outside --- fuel is pumped through the nozzle on the front, other cargo is transfered inside of the docking bays. Thrusters are already there. There are no repair doors on the outside because repairs are done from the inside. There are no windows because they aren't needed --- on a cruise ship, there might be some, but you couldn't tell their size.

And the real point is that it works to show the ships size and looks cool... That's the most important part, really... It's all about look... real functionality is none-existing, as it's all fictive...

Still it's supposed to make sense. I don't want it just for the looks

[rivalin]

Still it's supposed to make sense. I don't want it just for the looks

Good thing too, cos it looks like a flying rack of lamb, on a sled, with some trombones attached

Seriously though, I'm not trying to be rude, but it does tend to behove one to listen to the advice of those who know what they're talking about rather than argue with them.

But if you want to argue based on realism, then a real ship, especially a tanker, would have a much tighter focus on volume to surface area ratio, both for the sake of efficiency and structural integirty, and the fuel tanks wouldn't be positioned to completely throw off the centre of gravity. The aforementioned aspects of the ship are unrealistic, but I expect you added them because they look good, so what's the problem with adding greebles just because they look good? Still, it's your rack of lamb, design it however you want to.

[chuck_starchaser]

I can think of a thing or two... like coolers... antennas... cargo doors... repair doors... thrusters...

How do you cool something in space? All you can do is somehow radiating the heat. Antennas would likely be dishes and could be of any size. Antennas that are not dishes could be of any size as well, though there is some relationship between their length and the wavelength they are designed for (Did you ever install a CB radio in a vehicle?). There are no cargo doors on the outside --- fuel is pumped through the nozzle on the front, other cargo is transfered inside of the docking bays. Thrusters are already there. There are no repair doors on the outside because repairs are done from the inside. There are no windows because they aren't needed --- on a cruise ship, there might be some, but you couldn't tell their size.

Well, if you look for reasons NOT to have any details, I'm sure you'll find millions; but the ship will look like crap.

And the real point is that it works to show the ships size and looks cool... That's the most important part, really... It's all about look... real functionality is none-existing, as it's all fictive...

Still it's supposed to make sense. I don't want it just for the looks

Same here. The 300m ship I showed you, every pump, pipe, wire and box there is justified. I used the schematic of a VASIMR engine and built a ship around it. Frankly, nothing in your model makes any sense to me at all, right now, with fuel tanks that have weird shapes for no apparent reason, a frame that is much less than stress-weight efficient, and thrusters that are microscopic. It's ironic you'd reject greebles on an argument about "making sense".
To put together a shape and then try to justify it and defend it is not the way to work. I would advise that you start from a more realistic goal. There are many ships in Vegastrike right now that don't even have specular textures. There's an easy job for you; and in the process learn from the work (and mistakes) of others.

[GoldenGnu]

How do you cool something in space? All you can do is somehow radiating the heat. Antennas would likely be dishes and could be of any size. Antennas that are not dishes could be of any size as well, though there is some relationship between their length and the wavelength they are designed for (Did you ever install a CB radio in a vehicle?). There are no cargo doors on the outside --- fuel is pumped through the nozzle on the front, other cargo is transfered inside of the docking bays. Thrusters are already there. There are no repair doors on the outside because repairs are done from the inside. There are no windows because they aren't needed --- on a cruise ship, there might be some, but you couldn't tell their size.

Sorry, I'm kinda ignorance about space flight and that type of stuff...

Still it's supposed to make sense. I don't want it just for the looks

Well, people a different, I guess... I tent to go for looks, above realism... not that you can't have them both, thou...

[lee]

Good thing too, cos it looks like a flying rack of lamb, on a sled, with some trombones attached

It's delicious --- and Santa Claus loves it.

Seriously though, I'm not trying to be rude, but it does tend to behove one to listen to the advice of those who know what they're talking about rather than argue with them.

I appreciate the good advice being given. I don't argue that adding greebles can make a model look better. I just don't know what I would like to have on this one; I haven't even decided about the size it's supposed to have.

But if you want to argue based on realism, then a real ship, especially a tanker, would have a much tighter focus on volume to surface area ratio, both for the sake of efficiency and structural integirty, and the fuel tanks wouldn't be positioned to completely throw off the centre of gravity.

indeed

The aforementioned aspects of the ship are unrealistic, but I expect you added them because they look good, so what's the problem with adding greebles just because they look good?

Not exactly ... I didn't think so much about the center of gravity, and it was supposed to be a very simple and no more than functional design. That's why I said earlier that it's ambiguous. Now, it has become something else than it was supposed to be, but that doesn't matter because it was and is great for learning.

[lee]

It's ironic you'd reject greebles on an argument about "making sense".
To put together a shape and then try to justify it and defend it is not the way to work.

It made sense to me, but it doesn't work out the way I wanted. Still greebles added should make sense for the idea of the design, but the idea is that the hull is smooth and that everything is inside as far as possible. That's not different from the 300m ship you made: everything you added makes sense for the idea or has to be there because you were using a given schematic.

I would advise that you start from a more realistic goal. There are many ships in Vegastrike right now that don't even have specular textures. There's an easy job for you; and in the process learn from the work (and mistakes) of others.

Maybe it would be even better to have a particular object and make a model to look exactly like that object. That could be interesting ...

[chuck_starchaser]

Lee, just forget about designing a ship, for now. If you don't listen to this advise, chances are you'll end up a statistic: just another guy who came around here with dreams of being a modeler/texturer and then disappeared, like thousands before you.

Two reasons:

Without experience and knowledge, your first few models will be utter failiures; basket cases like this flying barbecue. This will disappoint you and wipe out your enthusiasm. There's a lot of stuff to learn to become a modeler.

Even if you did get a great looking model, it will probably not be used in Vegastrike, unless it is a particular model that was requested.
VERY rarely a model is presented here that it's so good that it is adopted by Vegastrike in spite of it not having been requested. Only one model in recent times that I can remember, by Oblivion, --a model that was absolutely superb!

If you're serious about modeling, start by working with existing models. In fact, start by working with textures for existing models.
There's sooooo much work to do for Vegastrike, in the art department; and so few people to do the work... Yet, hardly anybody wants to help with the work that needs to be done. Everybody wants to design a ship or station out of their own imagination, and then hope it can fit somewhere.
There are standing requests for models, piling up for years, with hand-sketches and stuff, and nobody to do them. There are tons of models that need to be re-unwrapped.
More importantly for you, at this stage, there's tons of work that needs to be done in the texturing department, with existing ships.
http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/forum ... hp?t=11217
So why not do something that Vegastrike needs, get the satisfaction of seeing your work being used in-game, AND learn about texturing and modeling in the process?

It's up to you, but I'm telling you, in my experience, *nobody* that ever comes to this board wanting to contribute a ship from the start *ever* gets it done --much less put into the game. Waste of time. We go through this once a week, then people disappear. Start with something simple, like contributing a specular texture for a ship that doesn't have one. It's not as easy as you think. I dare you to come up with a good specular texture. You'll be famous if you do.

EDIT:

I appreciate the good advice being given. I don't argue that adding greebles can make a model look better. I just don't know what I would like to have on this one; I haven't even decided about the size it's supposed to have.

This is the first problem, in fact. You should dream about a ship for a month, make tons of sketches on paper, improve on them for another month... THEN start modeling it. Why? Because the modeling will take you at least a month get right, at the beginning; and the texturing will take another month and a half of hard work; and that's for a small ship; but if you don't plan it, it will take you a year of undoing and redoing stuff.
And if this sounds too serious for you, then take on some other hobby; right now you're just playing with the tool, seeing what comes out. That's NOT designing, or modelling; just fooling around, and it shows.
Not that there's anything wrong with fooling around with a tool to get to know it; but if I was flattering about the speed with which you picked up some basic techniques in blender; I didn't mean that the ship was looking promising or anything, really. And I can't see how a ship could be smooth all around AND have stuff inside... Was it made by Cadbury Spaceyards?

[rigelan]

some of the greebles come with the texture anyway. And don't be so negative!

[chuck_starchaser]

SOME of the greebles come with the texture, and specially with the normalmap. BUT... Greebles that only use the texture and normalmap look painted on. Well, they ARE painted on. The only way to make texture greebles believable, really, is to mix them with geometry greebles.

Say, you have an antenna, or shield emitter; you can put a high voltage insulator at the base by drawing a few circles in the bump map, around the base of the antenna.

Or say you have a box wih a bolted-on cover: You could use the normalmap to show recesses around where the bolts go; but the box has to be geometry.

Normalmaps are not good at showing steep inclines.
Well, with Paralax it's another story; but we ain't got Paralax.

And don't be so negative!

Every time I follow this kind of advice and try to be positive, I end up regretting it with compound interest.
Look what happened here after being postive to lee for ONE post; he started thinking he really had a ship; and arguing...
Positivity doesn't work. Period.