Custom 3D Models and Mods Compilation

[Geezer]

Have just scratched the surface researching the Max-Blender interface, but have already found something that might be useful to Blender users.  Link below is a tutorial for Max users to familiarize themselves with Blender.  While that may not interest you guys, there is a segment, beginning around 18:00 that describes how to set up Blender's addons.  Blender has many addons that may interest you guys but most of them are not enabled!  Tutorial shows you how to turn them on.

 

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

@37mm Great work on that river Patrol Boat. You´re probably already aware of that but I´m writing it down for general information:

 

Visible Crew Members on Custom Models

- As already explained the crew/soldier positions are defined by these arrows parts when in blender, while muzzle flash arrows have a small yellow line which tells the direction of the muzzle flash I don´t know how to tell in which direction crew members look when in blender, I simply don´t touch them when moving them from vanilla vehicles.

- AFAIK what stance a crew member has or if he even is visible is defined by the internal CM engine. There are vehicles with full visible crew (jeeps, trucks etc.) and there are vehicle with invisible crew (most apcs/tanks) except when you press [open up] which "spawns" a visible tank commander, and there are vehicles with partially visible crew where you for example can see the driver but not the gunner or vice versa. 

- for amphibious vehicles if one want to go for some visible crew members on a custom model, the Syrian BRDM-2 and the German FUCHS has 1/2 visible crew members which for example could then placed on a patrol boat. The Fuchs has definitely 2 visible of which one controls the roof MG and raises from sitting into a standing stance when [open up] is pressed.

- having an amphibious vehicle with full visible crew/passengers would require a vanilla vehicle with the same trait. Unfortunately I don´t know any as Jeeps, Trucks, etc. can´t swim. So having 2 visible crew guys on a patrol boat is the best atm when I am right about all of this. Too bad we don´t have the Tank Rider feature in CMSF2, this would enable alot of oppurtunities with custom models and visible crews.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Sgt.Squarehead]

20 hours ago, Sequoia said:

I could be wrong, but might the Canadian Leopard I be the best candidate to use for the M60/M48 ?

In terms of accuracy.....Maybe. 

It has the right gun but the ammo & armour are too good.

But in game terms, the T-55 & T-62 are probably still the best bet.....Which is sad, because we can't pit (pseudo) M-48 Pattons against (pseudo) T-54s. 

IMHO sometimes it's better to accept the limitations you face and make the best compromise you can.....This will probably have to be one of those instances. 

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

But in game terms, the T-55 & T-62 are probably still the best bet.....Which is sad, because we can't pit (pseudo) M-48 Pattons against (pseudo) T-54s. 

Why not? With modtagging you can place the T-54 vanilla model in the T-55 1972 slot so it becomes mobile and the M-48 Patton in the T-62 slot for these scenarios.

Furthermore there are also the M/V models and like explained I believe ERA defence does not work if no ERA 3D model is present. However the M/V models fire ATGMs which is a downside of course (but I suspect they´re rarely/never been used when fighting other T55/T62). The better optics could be compensated by unit quality settings.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, Aquila-CM said:

Why not? With modtagging you can place the T-54 vanilla model in the T-55 1972 slot so it becomes mobile and the M-48 Patton in the T-62 slot for these scenarios.

Sadly that would give the M48 a massive gun advantage it just did not have.....The US 90mm wasn't even in the same league as the Soviet 115mm. 

Missed the bit about the ERA requiring the 3d model to work.....If that is the case then the T-55MV might make a decent M48 after all.  I'd certainly be willing to experiment with it if we can be sure that the ERA is neutralised.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

54 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sadly that would give the M48 a massive gun advantage it just did not have.....The US 90mm wasn't even in the same league as the Soviet 115mm. 

Missed the bit about the ERA requiring the 3d model to work.....If that is the case then the T-55MV might make a decent M48 after all.  I'd certainly be willing to experiment with it if we can be sure that the ERA is neutralised.

From my experiments vehicles replacements lose their slat/era armor protection if the era model parts and/or correct names are not present (era, era1,era2 etc.) on the model. I´d say place the M48 in the T-55MV slot and give it a try.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

M48 Patton V3 (With Searchlight + wo Seachlight version)

 

Wreck Version

- replaces the t-55mv by default but can be used for any vehicle, flavor object etc.

- now uses its own dedicated textures to prevent interferences with other vehicles

- added a plate beneath the turret to prevent visible holes when the turret rotates into extreme angles

- track, gun, mg and other parts´ position refined

- wreck version added

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0

 

I am done with the M48 and leave it now to you guys. Decorate, modify, and paint it according to your likings.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

M60 Tank V3

10 hours ago, Aquila-CM said:

- now replaces the t-62m by default but can be used for any vehicle, flavor object etc.

- now uses its own dedicated textures to prevent interferences with other vehicles

- "open up" loader placed beneath the cupola so he is inside the cupola while using the tertiary MG

- parts´ position refined

 

I am done with the M60 and leave it now to you guys. Decorate, modify, and paint it according to your likings.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0

Edited September 29, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Geezer]

I am encountering difficulties with my Max/Blender research because most youtube tutorials are for earlier versions of Blender, which do not match the most recent version - there have been changes to the User Interface.  I am using Blender 2.79.  Are you guys using an earlier version?  If so, please let me know so I can get on the same page.  Thanks.

[benpark]

I just looked at the M60 model-

It isn't grouped into the standard CM texture set names for texturing from the model. It is still using the original model-maker's groupings, as I see in Blender. So the textures won't be accurate to the model (without stretching, etc.) until this is done. If that's done, easy enough to texture.

I'd consider including that into the workflow, otherwise the models are converted "as-is", designed by the original maker (for whatever engine they design for) with textures adhering to a random (by CM standards) system, and will always have texturing issues.

That would speed things along, for what that's worth.

Edited September 29, 2019 by benpark

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

I am encountering difficulties with my Max/Blender research because most youtube tutorials are for earlier versions of Blender, which do not match the most recent version - there have been changes to the User Interface.  I am using Blender 2.79.  Are you guys using an earlier version?  If so, please let me know so I can get on the same page.  Thanks.

Anaconda3 Python 2019.03 (Python 3.7.3 64-bit), Blender 2.79b + CM2Tools Plugin here

Edited September 29, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

Glider WIP

With @Geezer´s help I was able to get the .max Glider model into Blender. I resized it according to historical photos, attached it to a CM2 primer object shelter, and assigned simple placeholder textures. When trying exporting it to .mdr it throws the shown error which states that the model parts miss texture maps.

I´ve uploaded the Blender project as it is to my Dropbox. If one has texture/mapping/uv skills feel free to take over, modify, finish, and release it. Same applies for the rest of my models.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0

Edited September 29, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

Insurgents from my ongoing Syrian vs NATO campaign raided a Lebanese vehicle depot near the border and eventually gained control over operational M60 tanks which received new paint jobs:

In action:

However some of them are still left in pretty bad shape:

These two variants were created in under 5 minutes and are examples of that even without UV/material/mapping skills one can create decent looking paint jobs. By simply googling terms such as "camo texture" "rusty metal texture" "olive metal texture" qickly texture patterns can be found that can be converted to bmp (shown in previous post) and then assigned as new textures in blender (also shown in previous post).

Next step could be then to invest some further minutes into refining the camo texture.bmp in GIMP2/Photoshop etc. in order to make it look less clean/more natural which I did not yet.

Nevertheless for best quality and detail, UV maps/texture/material editing is the golden standard. I have good hope that skilled individuals like @Geezer  will manage to dig into all of this in order to provide quality texture work.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Oleksandr]

Wonderful work man! 

[Sequoia]

One does not simply walk into Lebanon and steal a M-60!  (sorry, had to go there)

[MOS:96B2P]

15 hours ago, Aquila-CM said:

operational M60 tanks which received new paint jobs:  

 

+1.  Nice!!!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

This thread continues to shock and amaze.

[Geezer]

Been working with Aquila on importing Max models into Blender, and then into CM2.  We have a problem with texture mapping - it is not possible to skin the new models with anything but generalized artwork.  So, working in Max, I am remapping the M60A3.  If I can get it looking half-way decent in Max, it should be possible to then export the model (plus mapping and artwork) to Blender.  Go to link below, click Combat Mission, and view "Distortion" and "Reduced Distortion" to see the difference between the original UV mapping and my new UV mapping.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/s0wo6kum/

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Watching with much interest.....If you can create a truly functional & fitting skin for these models, I'm absolutely confident that they will find considerable use hereabouts.

Still on standby for any CM:FI related developments. 

[37mm]

On 9/28/2019 at 8:58 PM, Aquila-CM said:

From my experiments vehicles replacements lose their slat/era armor protection if the era model parts and/or correct names are not present (era, era1,era2 etc.) on the model.

I felt I had to test out this (potentially) revolutionary statement...

Although, to be honest, it takes very little to get me to start firing RPG's at T-72's to "observe the effects".

Either way, my conclusions?

Although it is true that the reactive armour blocks are "lost" if a model does not possess them, Combat Mission (which cannot be fundamentally altered by modding) reacts by doing its own model swaps.

Reactive armour hits get replaced with "superstructure" hits or some other placeholder.

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

From a technical standpoint it would indeed make more sense when nothing happens by removing the addon armor and it would be likely also better for all of us.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[Sgt.Squarehead]

19 hours ago, 37mm said:

Reactive armour hits get replaced with "superstructure" hits or some other placeholder.

From my perspective this is actually an acceptable outcome.....So long as the player doesn't see any whopping great explosions and 'Reactive Armour Hit' text messages, the job's a good 'un!

In my 'Nam style scenarios tanks will be so rare that their unexpected toughness shouldn't be at all noticeable and in my Golden Trapezoid' war on drugs stuff I'll mostly be using stock models anyway.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[37mm]

On 7/30/2019 at 1:57 PM, Aquila-CM said:

I tried to add CMFIs own bush models to the Tiger which looked beautiful in Blender. However in the games only the wooden base is visible. Perhaps someone else will figure this out or find an good bush substitute in the game files.

I learnt this (the hard way) through my experiments with the tree .mdr's (which I eventually abandoned).

Only tree (and bush) models in CM are capable of using textures with "grey transparency".

Everything else (inc buildings, uniforms, vehicle textures & FO's) must use "black & white" transparency... I have little real understanding  of the difference but that is what is happening.

@MikeyD would probably be able to explain more, as I believe he made the tree models (at least for the later games).

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

13 hours ago, 37mm said:

I learnt this (the hard way) through my experiments with the tree .mdr's (which I eventually abandoned).

Only tree (and bush) models in CM are capable of using textures with "grey transparency".

Everything else (inc buildings, uniforms, vehicle textures & FO's) must use "black & white" transparency... I have little real understanding  of the difference but that is what is happening.

@MikeyD would probably be able to explain more, as I believe he made the tree models (at least for the later games).

Thats then likely the issue. I converted the texture of the bush but the bush then becomes ugly/blocky and not suitable as vehicle camo.  

I really would like to use something bush-like as vehicle camo for my playthroughs but despite the CMSF2 British camo nets shown here on the lead vehicle:

 there is no model in any Combat Mission release I can think of where I could borrow a bush-like model part.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[37mm]

6 hours ago, Aquila-CM said:

There is no model in any Combat Mission release I can think of where I could borrow a bush-like model part.

As part of my tree .mdr experiments, I did discover you can have CMSF hedges/bocage/tall bocage as FO's so their textures must use "black & white" transparency (I also recall an earlier experiment where I tried to use a different foilage texture for the CMSF hedges... it failed &, now, I know why).

Also CMFI grapevines can be used as FO's so, again, they must use "black & white" transparency.

I'm unsure about the hedges/bocage/tall bocage from other CM games.