KMHPaladin

ROFL

Okay, Maas, I do have a pretty nice computer - PIII 750, 192MB, 20GB HD, and 16MB VRAM. For a laptop, that's not bleeding edge, but it's close. Even for a desktop, it's not a half-bad set of specs. I realize that I'm lucky to have 16MB VRAM in a laptop, but hell, I paid the price... and of course, in 6 months a lot of laptops will feature the Geforce2go, so go figure . Gettim', Berli! Why yes, Stacheldraht, I happen to keep detailed information on the system specs of each and every user here. Would you like to see them? Seriously, obviously you don't have any figures either. For every person with a P4/Geforce2GTS there's a person with an iMac trying to run the game. Don't tell me that you think the majority of people out there have T&L or bump-mapping cards out there. I don't have a problem with them being included, because as was said previously, they don't affect someone whose card doesn't support them, but they do add significantly to development time, and that in my opinion is not worth it for only a segment of the population. To JMcGuire, who obviously hasn't realized that laptops of today are not like the laptops of two years ago, .

I think from the long, drawn-out conversations that I remember from before, that if the gun is "abandoned" it is left by troops that have been frightened away. In the small timespace that CM models, it would not be very likely that a shocked crew would recover and reman their gun. I don't recall if they can be reused in operations but I believe they can.

Also... I know that most people don't play at the "Realistic" scale but instead go up to the "+2" level (actually it's the default ) so it may look like they're colliding but in reality they may well not be.

Not everybody has a top-of-the-line graphics card. I play on a recent IBM TP A20p which has only a 16MB ATi Rage card, certainly not equipped for such things... I'd rather not see the team delayed trying to add such features for a relatively small sector of the population. And if one of you tell me to "upgrade" my graphics card, I'm going to beat you senseless with my laptop case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: KwazyDog (or anyone else who uses it), would you recommend 3dstudiomax as the best tool to get going on 3d-modelling? I've been thinking about getting it for the last three years but as you know it's quite expensive. -Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Max is the most powerful program that I'm aware of, but for someone who isn't extremely knowledgeable, handling the array of tools at your fingertips is like trying to take a sip from a firehose (can you say "information overload?") You sound like you know what you're doing, but I would recommend reading a lot before you shell out that kind of cash.

I get to fulfill a lifelong dream twice in one day! HI MOM!

Been wanting to do this for a while . HI MOM!

Yo guys, someone comes in, obviously a newbie, and makes what he obviously thinks are justified and earnest suggestions. Instead of kindly pointing out what you think is wrong with his ideas, you jump all over them. Jesus christ, you even attack him for trying to remember veterans. Show a little class, would you?

Hey Kwazy... good point on the open-topped vehicles, I can imagine they must be poly-killers. From my calculations... well first of all, as far as I know in 3DSMax a "rectangle" is really two triangles or polies. Thus each of the edges of the barrel, i.e. the very front, is two polies - 12 right there. The inside of each rectangle on the muzzle brake (or whatever that last wide cylinder is) is another two - or 12 more polies. There is also the angled cylinder between the brake and the barrel itself, which I'm assuming is just a cylinder with either some weird perspective effect or a smoothing group applied to it... at any rate, if each vertex on the gun barrel goes to a vertex on the brake, as it appears it does, that would of course be a 6-sided cylinder, with the corresponding additional 12 polies. Assuming you put a "cap" on the barrel at the connection to the brake, you could move that cap to the muzzle itself, thus not needing any more polies added... and save 36 polies. Of course, these are a lot of assumptions on my part, and it's a moot point if you're using separate models for near and far. Out of curiosity, what are you doing to differentiate between near and far models? Are you running some kind of plugin to cut down on the polygons a certain percentage without losing acceptable detail, or creating new models? Lastly... are you using Max, Lightwave, or another tool? Just curious as to what someone in the business uses. Again, to make that detailed a model with only 350 polies is pretty impressive. Keep up the good work,

one other thing - I don't know if this was just a "pretty" render or if it's a working model, but I would immediately suggest that you take out the hollowed barrel. I read a lot of posts on a forum dedicated to modeling for Counterstrike and one of the first things that people are told when they show up with a new model is not to hollow out barrels or other cylinders. That's obviously more prevalent in CS, since you're never going to see the barrel end, but even in CM you should be able to skin the muzzle hole very convincingly and save 20-30 polies doing it. Maybe not a lot, but when you consider that there's never just one tank on a map...

You've modeled those tanks in about 350 polygons? Impressive... what software are you using?

No knowledge on the Bren, sorry... In regards to Hathcock, Gyrene is absolutely correct. I've read the same book and some of his feats are amazing. Not only did he eventually nearly wipe out the NVA company, he did it over a period of hours. The M2 story is true as well, as I recall there's a picture of him either on the cover or inside with a little scope mounted on a big machine gun... amazing.

ROFL... wow, you sure got him, Bates. Think for a second, tough guy... (good one Chupa, new fun with an old joke )

Sgt Kelly I am considering doing a Private Ryan-style Omaha beach because of the ease of converting from the movie to a map as opposed to interpolating from maps to a map (i.e. having to guess at elevation, etc.) as well as the fact that the historically inaccurate short beach would probably be easier on the Halflife engine. Am I wrong in thinking this? It seems tough to reconcile the pictures where the cliffs seem like an eternity away and SPR where the cliff is only a hundred yard from the waterline. I understand that looking at a movie as anything but an abstraction of reality is a mistake, but SPR was supposedly a good representation of Omaha and that always nagged at my perception. Additionally, the mental picture that I'm getting from the diagrams I've seen is that the bunkers were not actually on top of the cliffs, but for the most part were at the foot of the cliff with more of a network of trenches atop the cliff. Anything to add/correct/comment on in that? Please go ahead. Thanks for your input,

Alright cool tom, I looked at them more closely and they are indeed excellent. The only thing I wish they included was something showing elevation, that would be useful... but they are indeed good.

Thanks a lot for those resources, they are excellent. I'm also looking for anything that shows individual bunker positions along a shorter stretch, like maybe a sector-sized area. Anyone have that? Thanks guys, I really appreciate you taking the time.

One of my current favorite games is a Half-Life mod called "Day of Defeat," a pretty fun World War II infantry game in the vein of Firearms or Counter-Strike. They recently released a 1.2 version, but unfortunately, their Omaha beach map falls far short of reality. I am trying to gather pictures and diagrams that show what the beach looked like in reality, in terms of fortifications, bunkers, trenches, etc. If you have any detailed pictures or diagrams that show how they were set up, I would very much appreciate you sharing them. Thanks in advance,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leeo: OOoooo, lookee who thinks he's "keeper" of the Mutha-Beautiful thread! I'm a newbie, I admit it and acknowledge it. However, your view of the thread is as consequential to me as the tick on my dog. Your lame attempt at maliciousness is equivelant to the rat terrier that yaps at me from the parked car next to mine at the mall. I can only hope that your owners will soon roll your windows up and go have a long lunch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. "Your lame attempt at maliciousness is equivelant to the rat terrier that yaps at me from the parked car next to mine at the mall." Touche - right back at you, ace. Back to your cage, noob...

Hey tough guy, in case you've not realized it yet, this entire thread is made up of grossly off-topic thoughts that are almost all either inane or asinine - haven't you become accustomed to it yet? "Feck off" as you so eloquently put it.

Good lord, a Phillies fan? I'm from South Jersey, maybe 20 minutes from the Vet, and it's still tough to be a Phillies fan. I gave up rooting for them so long as the current management is in place... But I'm a diehard Eagles fan and I'm hoping that either the Flyers or Sixers go somewhere in the playoffs. Given the way the Flyers are looking, it's going to have the be the Sixers...

I don't know if it's just me, but the default text size seems far far too large - and I'm running at 1280x on a 19" monitor. In the old forum I used to always go to View -> Text Size -> Smaller and when you upgraded the forum I breathed a sigh of relief that I didn't have to do that anymore... Most other UBB-based forums that you will go to will have it on that size setting. Here are three examples for your viewing pleasure... http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/boards/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi http://bb.cs-skins.net/bbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi http://www.dayofdefeatmod.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi Regardless though I still will come (just since I know you guys were holding your breath to find out . Oh and one more thing - please get rid of the "edited by" messages, since they seem to show up above the signatures... Anyway, keep up the good work, [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: KMHPaladin ]

Rommel! A fellow DoD player... great to see you . I have been a CS junkie up until a week or so ago, when I installed DoD. Since then I've only played CS once or twice. DoD is great and I can't wait to play their 1.2 version. Not to hijack your thread Jinxx - I think your idea has merit, but given that in the time it would take to release several more versions of CM, several iterations of hardware and software will have occurred, meaning that CM will be very-out-of-date in terms of graphics, modeling, etc., it's not very practical. Additionally, as someone said, subsequent versions will add different and new command options, etc... Welcome to the club, by the way... sorry your initial welcoming was a bit on the rude side.

Good lord... hahaha... you think that it's "cheating" when the AI finds a well-concealed position and shoots at you? I'm sorry... wait a second... I have to pick myself up off the floor... Okay I'm back. Yeah, I suggest you go back to playing Command and Conquer until such a point as you can learn <LI> Just because a unit fires at you, doesn't mean it is magically revealed. <LI> Lurk on a forum, or at least read a few posts, before you post something that is not only blatantly inflammatory, but purely wrong. <LI> War is hell. Deal with it. Thus endeth the flame... [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: KMHPaladin ]

I kind of like it... I was a fan of the old UBB back in the days when most people used weird and archaic bulletin board software, and it's cool to see that they're evolving. Most of the websites that I frequent seem to have gone to this "new" version of UBB. I especially like that the font size is in a normal size and not at the point where I have to View->Text Size->Smaller every time I come in . However I agree with most people that the colors could do with a change... Keep up the good work,