Alexander SquidLord Williams Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Oh, Clay ... Can we get an approximate face / edge / vertex count for the current models in DT? I figured I might as well give it a whirl, at some point, but I don't want to get excessive, over what we have now. (Really, what I want to do is create a set of alternate frames for the present designs that look more techno-organic. Wings3d is disturbingly good at creating organic forms, and its what I know. Now, don't ask me if I'm any good at texturing the things ...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I'd personally like to give it a shot, as well. Some of the discussion here gave me an idea... Guess I'll have to go see if that Blender download will actually finish today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_au Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I've changed my oppinion of blender a bit since reading this:- Blender Noob to Pro For some reason though I just can't get UVW mapping to show up in viewports or render though. I've follwed the tutes and still didn't work. Oh well.. I got it to work once but since then nada. I started an idea maybe someone else wants to run with it. I'd "like" to work on the textures for it but I just don't seem to have the feel to actually finish making it. The idea is like a land based alternative to the Galaxy. The idea comes from the D.Drake Novel "The Sharp End" In that there are Huge tracked Road-train type trucks. I was trying to turn this idea into a sort of futuristic log-pac. Something truly huge with a massive signiature which requires 2 herpes to jam and protect it. I've got the super structure modelled but then could work out how to UVW or how to make the wheels / tracks as seperate items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Sorry to repeat myself: Has anyone got his own model into DT yet (and play)? If so, how did you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hub Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 [ October 21, 2006, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Hub ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tankibanki Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I don't think that's what poesel is interested it. I have put the heavy mortar on an Apollo as well, but I understand the question as: "Has anyone created a model from scratch and imported it to DT?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Yes tankibanki, thats what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaytoniousRex Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Native .obj support, including fixes to the Animation tags that Yurch ran into, is now up and running for 1.1.4. Same goes for the .3ds format. So you don't have to use .cob files anymore. Poesel, to answer your question, Yurch has managed to get a model into the game but only with some remaining significant problems (the animation thing I referred to above). With 1.1.4 it is Cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendigo Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex: Native .obj support, including fixes to the Animation tags that Yurch ran into, is now up and running for 1.1.4. Same goes for the .3ds format. So you don't have to use .cob files anymore. Yeay!! 3ds can be done by anything, even my beloved Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendigo Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Ok, here's another concept. Little tracked scout vehicle. Armed with 4 ATGM:s and machineguns. Paperthin armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander SquidLord Williams Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Wendigo, I imagine it'd be rather hard to get and hold a lock without a turret to rotate, and I'm not so sure how easily you'll be able to make a twin-swivel turret out of those external pods. But what really bothers me about this design is that the pods are mounted at mid-chassis. So, to get a firing solution, you'll have to have the vehicle be pretty much completely visible, with relatively unsloped armour on the front and sides. Now, if the pods were mounted up top like Mickey ears ... but then, you might as well use the standard ATGM mount, and it'd just be a treaded Shrike with a coax (which the Shrike needs, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendigo Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Yea, the main protection would still be size. Actually those weaponpods are from my mech-project and may not represent best possible solution. I'm just wondering if this concept (fast, small weak armor, midrange weaponry) would be feasible. Currently all included vehicles are HUGE. Even Shrike. The model can be refined, but still getting vehicle small makes sloping armor hard unless one widens it to get room for engines and battery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaytoniousRex Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 The concept of a small, remote platform like this is great to see. I'm sure you can iron out the details, but the concept is great. It might even be nice in the future to allow the Mercury and/or the Cutter to carry 1 or 2 or 3 of these as cargo and be able to deploy them when needed, like moving turrets which can be returned to the parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander SquidLord Williams Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 The concept of a small, remote platform like this is great to see. I'm sure you can iron out the details, but the concept is great. It might even be nice in the future to allow the Mercury and/or the Cutter to carry 1 or 2 or 3 of these as cargo and be able to deploy them when needed, like moving turrets which can be returned to the parent.If these are more UGVs than manned scout vehicles (which was the implication I gathered before), it might be reasonable for them to have the same "can't see me!" terrain cloaking that infantry get (only less so). That'd give them at least a tiny chance of remaining unseen until things get close enough for their weapons to be useful. Or for the ATGM to get a solid lock and launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaytoniousRex Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Yes, as long as they're sufficiently small, that's a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendigo Posted August 26, 2006 Author Share Posted August 26, 2006 Ok, here's more realistic model for the one-man-tank concept. Two-shot ATGM and machinegun with limited turret traverse. One man crew with thin armor. Modeling tracks is giving me a major headache as I really don't like the lack of detail in those "bands" but adding any details results in humongous polycounts. Oh, BTW, is there anyone here who loves texturing? It isn't exactly my strong area and creating good textures (as they are in the game) might be a bit beyond my reach currently. Basic camo is OK but creation of detail seems a bit elusive unless I give it much more effort. Creating UGV is simple, I just remove the "cockpit" and move the turret to the centre. As controlling multiple vehicle could be pain in the behind to code, I'd think that this could be easier to begin with. [ August 26, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Wendigo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adzling Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 hey wendigo 1). make your wheels 8 sided octagons (all drop team wheels have that geometry). 2). reduce the track thickness and increase their width a little, dont worry about the lack of detail the texures provide that. 3). no need to any openings for driver vision, they are represented by textures not geometry. 4). i would suggest combining the operator cockpit with the turret and moving it to the centerline of the afv, that way the same model could double as a remote AFV or a manned AFV. 5). I like the idea of adjusting the concept slightly to make it similar to a bren-gun carrier. To do this you would need to add a small open or flat-bed infantry carrying area to the rear of the vehicle. I would see this as a unit that is deployed WITH inf as a single unit. The player has the option of driving/ transporting his unit in the vehicle (with the commander manning the gun/driving and the rest of the squad firing from the back in a similar manner to building occupation). Hit the "b" key and dismount with the option of the commander continuing to drive/fire while the rest of the dismounted squad fires/follows depending on the action of the commander in the carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcon-5 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex: Those animation tags correspond to the various states the vehicle is in at any one time just as you said, such as idling, driving, etc. They do 2 useful things: </font>Make the model animate (but as you can see none of the current set of vehicles makes use of this one) - this could be used to make pieces of the vehicle move when driving, for example, or make a little radar attachment spin around, or whatever kind of mesh animation you wanted</font>Make the vehicle emit sound - so you can have a high rev sound for moving and an idling engine sound for the "idle" animation, etc.</font> The AnimationID specifies which state this animation corresponds to. It's an integer that specified one of these states: LOITER - 0 MOVE - 1 AIM - 2 SHOOT - 3 DIE - 4 BURN - 5 EXPLODE - 6 MOVE FAST - 7 MOVE SHOOT - 8 MOVE FAST SHOOT - 9 Clay those tags just aint right. Most models dont have a "7" or "8" and "9" is used to dig with. Is there an updated list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts