Ordnance Updates
 

This thread will contain all updates of my ordnance mods to optimize them to be in line with DT requirements and their future inclusion in 4.13. Hopefully we will be able to introduce some new loadouts, as well.

COMMENTS AND LINKS TO SOURCE MATERIAL ARE WELCOME.

Japanese Ordnance
 

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...er_pub-8-1.jpg

List of Navy bombs to come except for one of the No.80s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mbs-DE.svg.png

Type 97 No.6 - Land bomb (HE) ~60kg
Type 99 No.6 - Standard bomb (AP) ~60kg
Type 99 No.25 Mod.1 - Standard bomb (HE) ~ 250kg

Please note that they are yet without fuze and the skins are WIP.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...er_pub_1-1.jpg

US ordnance
 

-reserved-

German ordnance
 

-reserved-

British ordnance
 

General Purpose (GP)

250 lbs., 500 lbs., 1,000 lbs.

Medium Capacity (MC)

250 lbs., 500 lbs., 1,000 lbs.

Armour Piercing (AP)

2,000 lbs AP

Incendiary Bombs (IB)

250 lbs IB, 500 lbs IB

Soviet ordnance
 

-reserved-

Minor nations ordnance
 

-reserved-

Good to see, and I will be looking forward to it. Nice work so far.

Looks very good! With impatience I will wait for news!

Hi Zorin
What about flare and smoke ordnance?
For example German LC 50, soviet SAB-50-28 and so on?
This would be great addition for night missions

SAB-50-28 (1941)
http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/inde...h=126660;image

LC 50
http://bodenplatte-45.narod.ru/lc50.jpg

Can you make a proper 1000lbs bomb for brits ? So the Tempest can get rid of american, please ?

Should be no problem. The flares would require a new effect by someone else though, as that is beyond my abilities.

dFrog, there will be plenty of British bombs, fear not.

Wonderful news Zorin. Keep up the great work!

Hi Zorin,

Until will be any bomb/torpedo done with all things (4 lods with 32bit texture 256*256 resolution) try send max file with PSD on DT mail for revision.
If will be ok, can be object released in next update. Keep low-poly standard. Use alpha-channel for save polys where will be need.

mag

I am sticking to the guidelines I have been given.

Question for the community, would you like the bombs to be wearing a skin appropriate for the year and theatre set by the scenario you play?

For example some German bombs would start out being darkgrey to become greengrey, as well as being lightblue if being used in North Africa.

If its not to time consuming and your willing to do it that would be great. :)

How would the skins be determined? Tied to the map, or increasing the list of ordinance with each skin version?

Presumably using the same mechanism that works for default skins on some aircraft (i.e. German aircraft now sport correct theatre band markings depending on if East, West or Med).

In the FMB, you can set the exact date for that particular mission/map. This will have an effect on certain environmental conditions such as position of sun/moon/stars, etc. I believe we also have certain ordnance (early/late torps) tied to mission dates.

So, this may be a partial answer to your question.

Aviar

Stupid Question. Will the British ordinance include the Grand Slam/Tallboy bombs?

No, cause we don't have a plane that used them. You can find a list of all British bombs that will be made on the first page in the british ordnance post.

Anyone Want A Cookie?
 

Apparently the Wellington, appearing in next patch, and Mosquito could carry the blockbuster which might be worth some consideration.

On the other hand, this may not be the best idea I have ever had... I have no desire to simulate firestorms and destruction of residential areas. It is not clear to me that this weapon had any tactical applications; my apologies to all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb

I have no word from the guy/s who built the Wellington whether they made a HC 4000lb or not.

yes that ok.

Interesting Wikipedia article on the Grand Slam... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28bomb%29

Only able to be carried by the B.Mk 1 (Special) variant of the Lancaster. The bomb would not fit on a regular Mark I-III versions of the Lancaster. Only the special variant with modifications to fit the bomb.

I imagine if we did get a Lancaster that we could potentially have the special version.

Final torpedo mesh to be found on first page. Files will be sent to TD shortly.

Looks good. Very thorough!

Thnaks Ice. There had to be some ommissions to be made, but I think they will do the job just fine.

I also added the last type Cruciform (braced) to the first page.

Hopefully we will be able to introduce some new loadouts,
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

Looking great Zorin.

Finally the IJN bombs will get updated as well.

Thanks. :)

If I can keep this pace and TD will accept my work without objection there can be no reason to not have all IJA and IJN bombs in 4.12 as well.

Zorin, you have mentioned different skins for bombs depending on time or theatre. Will your japan bombs have two skins ? Army and navy used different colors for bombs.

There will be different IJA and IJN bombs for starters. Each wearing the correct skin with appropriate base colors and color bands befitting the type of bomb.

Great ! Can't wait...

Zorin, do you have any good sources for these Japanese armaments? Reason I ask is that I'd love to see the Type 99-1 99-2 and other weapons represented in IL-2 instead of using the nearest German, American, or British equivalent but I've struggled to find any resources anywhere on the details (individual shells, etc.).

http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/tm919...pl.ord1953.pdf

These are descriptions of all projectiles used by the Japanese Army and Navy, though it might be a bti too basic for your needs.

I'm not sure... I may be in over my head at this point but I'll send it in and see what can be made of it. It's much more detailed than anything else I've been able to find!

Let's hope it will prove helpful.

First page updated with a list of Navy bombs and the first 60kg bomb rendered.

Would it be possible to add German and Japanese air-to-air bombs to the game, that were used against Allied bomber formations or is this beyond the scope of the project?
I guess doing the models and textures shouldn't be a problem, but it would also require new effects and changes to the AI.

That is entirely up to TD and not my responsibility to decide.

Zorin, your torps look beautiful and the regular updating is most welcome. I wish the map makers working with DT did the same (I mean a separate thread with updates, pics and info).

again, really good news here...

especially, possibility of smoke bombs (it's can be new type of gameplay) and new flares...


and question (sorry, if) - only bombs? what about some rockets, and, maybe, new racks for rockets and bombs?

Rockets will be included. Racks are again up to TD. It depends on whether they want improved meshes for them or not.

EDIT: First page updated with second 60kg bomb.

Just so you know, I have to get acknowledgement of receipt and/or approval for the torpedos yet.

Here is some feedback for you from one of DT modellers

We will send you the reworked model asap...

How am I supposed to know that?


I always paint and setup textures in a higher resolution. It was just the base setup and had no detailing yet. Of course it would be resized for the finished product...


I UVW to reduce possible distortion even if that requires a little more time for proper texture painting. Besides, anything that would have had seams you removed anyway...


Why should I do it if I can keep higher detail within the tri-level limit I have been given? I also was told that I would not have to build for 2-sided material, but could use flipped faces and only count one side per part. Could you guys please make your mind up....

Alpha channels are just to be avoided as far as I am concerned as they only allow for very crude results on this resolution levels.


Surprise, see point one. If I don't get proper info on that, how can I include it? Besides this was clearly labelled as a LOD0 preview...


See point 1 and 5.


Noted.


Cute euphemism and the detonator is not placed where you did "correct" my detonator to. Believe it or not, I actually know what I am doing. Also, the variants are meant to allow every type of torpedo plane to use the proper torpedo tail for any given time frame. If you don't want the four, which could easily be 8 btw, then just leave out the tail assemblies altogether, cause anything else would be a halfarsed job.

But I am glad that the community now has a comparison. I will gladly dumb down the meshes, anyway. Anything is better than the standard crap that is in game at the moment.

Hm... just came to my mind... do you need example models? Or do you have already?

Pls don't take poly limits as something to exhaust at any costs - 500 is a number for comparible complex objects. Every saved polygon is a good polygon.

Sorry if we look unsatisfied with the status (LoDs etc.) ... we took it, that the model was finished - at least the one, who wrote the report.

Examples sure wouldn't hurt, cause those would give me the file structure you want and an insight on how you want to see things done cause it is apparent that that is the only way you accept them.

Well, I usually take limits as something to guarantee the highest level of detail within, so that a plywood plate actually looks like one and not resembles a sheet of paper, but that is clearly not your approach.

Every tail assembly was modelled milimeter accurate and now are just one pixel thick and invisible from a head-on/tail-on view.

But that is fine with me, as long as people are aware that that is the way you want things and not the level I could produce.

If the eMail reads "...file for the Type 91 torpedos LOD0", why would anyone consider it to be anything more?

Just one more info on item 7). Save TGA with RLE compression turned OFF. The game can't handle RLE compression.

Noted.

We will see, what we can do, regarding the samples.

What you forget is, that:
1. it mostly won't be noticed by most of the players due to moving angles, limited zoom, cockpit always on, uninterest, unknowlede etc. or whatever
2. its look has to fit with the rest, so it doesn't break the 'visual composition' of the game

Both issues suggest the use of compromises between details and saving polys/textures, even if the limits are not reached. Thats part of game development.
If the world was perfect, there would exist quite a few more different limits for different objects or it should be defined exclusively for every new project.
But its not that way, because its easier as it is ... BUT on the other side it demands some kind of good sense for what is reasonable and what is exaggerated.

Ha, I doubt, anyone will blame on you. ;)

Not everyone of the team reads the inbox. The model was handed over without the note. That issue is clear now.

Well, generally, you don't. Now you do. On a side note, however, it is rather logical to have a front projection of your model in the front view window of the Max. But, don't worry, it's a typical error, I did that too, when I was only starting. ;)

For an objects with relatively small pixel rate (a number of texture pixels per polygon) I wouldn't recommend such approach. Because it is quite possible that after resizing the texture, a details painted on it, would shift way too much relatively to the existing UWs. And some pieces previously carefully aligned on UW seams or near 3D parts would become misaligned.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended to painted a texture exactly into the size, which would be used on the final product.

It is a very good approach for a large objects and large textures. In current situation, however, with relatively small pixel rate it is better to avoid making too many seams because with only few pixels per polygon it sometimes would be impossible to align texture on the seams properly.

The main hull wasn't removed, or so it seems and it was the place with the most unpleasant number of seams in most unpleasant place (were fin attachments were supposed to be painted.

For a starters, the very thick fins, you modeled, wouldn't be accurate to the real thing. The metal fins on the torpedo had "hydrofoil" shape, so their outer edges were almost knife-sharp. The thickest part of the fin would be at the middle of it's root and it would be around 10mm or so, judging from the photos. The only image of the torpedo with that thick fins is from USS Intrepid museum, where an inaccurate wooden replica is displayed.

Another reason is that on all other IL-2 models (planes, vehicles, ships) parts, which are thinner, then 30mm or so, are considered as 0-thin. We have to keep general visual detail of all models on approximately the same level.

And finally, making those parts 0-thin allows use of alpha channel, which allows to further reduce polygon count.

Don't see any contradiction here. You can use both approaches, even on the same model, if you please. But generally, it's easier to use 2-sided material.

Do they really? Looking on the model which was sent back to you, I can not say, they do. :cool:

LODs were mentioned along with basic triangle and texture requirements somewhere on this forum.

Sometimes, you got to get into account, that you work with other people, not just alone. In this particular case, making a gazilion variants of basically the same weapon, which differs from others only extrnally generates a lot more work for a programmers who will implement this ordnance into the game. Throwing at them more work at a time, when they are already overwhelmed with other work isn't a good example of team work.

That's approximately the same story, as with polygon limit, as Caspar explained it to you.

Noted.


I am obviously not used to low poly modelling. I shall adapt.


Noted and I am eager to see how you guys mapped it now.


I mostly used tech drawings and photographs of the salvaged original torpedo, though my latest version of the tail planes had little to no resemblance to the original as I had to cut down polys left, right and center.

Good to know, then nothing will need to be made accurate in the thickness regard. Should save me some time calculating measurements ;)

Alpha channels always feel like a short cut to me and that is why I have avoided them so far, perhaps you guys can teach me how small resolution textures acan produce accurate alpha results.


Can't recall ever having seen any specifics about them in all my years around here.

See, how are we outsiders supposed to know that? Basic logic would dictate that a visually different model would only require a simple copy and paste effort in the coding department as nothing has to be changed except for the name and path info and that is hardly a limiting factor.

This leads us straight to an important question:

Is there a point to making new types of bombs (HE and AP) for the Japanese (and othernations) or will the bombs stay as simple as they are now and therefor it will make no difference what kind they are?

Low-polygon modeling for games always requires to simplify RL objects for two reasons: save polygons on large objects and make smaller and simpler objects (where one could care less about polygon number) at equal detail level, so they would fit into general visual representation of the virtual world one is building.

Because, if you have too detailed object in relatively low detailed world, it would make look the whole world unrealistic, the same as if you have low detailed object in the high detailed world, it would make this object unrealistic and out of place.

IL-2 game models use alpha channels everywhere, on every plane and cockpit model there are plenty of it. Many ground objects, all ships, etc. use a lots of alpha-channel textures. Many polygon-saving techniques, used in the game models, are based on alpha-channel usage. So far, that doesn't seem a problem.

In case of multiple variants of the same thing, a programer would have to program appearance of respective model according to correct service time, which would require him to check all those dates, check what model should appear when, etc. Not a big deal, when he has only this stuff to do, but another fraction of an ass-pain, if he has a lot more stuff to do as well, which should have been done yesterday and so on. So, whenever you can ease his job - why not?

I didn't say, there is no need to replace bad, or innacurate models, but I don't see much use in making a multiple variants of the same thing, which differ only visually, with no functional difference. So, in general, it is enough to have like maximum 3 visual variants of the same ordnance, as it does not affect the gameplay much. The smaller and the more "secondary" an object is - the fewer variants and less visual accuracy can it have. It's just a matter of saving labor resources.

Seems to me that HE and AP variants of Japanese bombs would be welcome additions. Being able to select the type of effect one wants on the target depending on the target would be extremely useful just as it is with German ordinance.

He would get all those dates and types from me, so no extra work for him.

Well, if you want to see torpedos sticking half their tail assembly into the hull of the plane because it is the wrong assebmly for said plane, so be it.

You also did not nswer the question I actually asked. Is there the will to introduce new bomb types or do you mearly want to see all meshes replaced?

Also, I yet have to receive the rebuild torpedo or any other example file...


Oh and here is the 60kg bomb with 2 sided material and alpha channel setup. 244 tris. The absolute minimum in quality as far as I am concerned.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...b_2resized.jpg

Yes.

It still looks very good Zorin, don't worry. It will look great under the wings of the Val. The torps are still a huge improvement over the old mesh, even with two-sided parts.

I can see you're very detail-oriented, which is a good quality to have, but don't allow the pursuit of perfection to frazzle your nerves. If you made every bomb to the initial level of quality you've presented, you would absolutely lose it, considering how many types there are.

Those high-detail models would fit in nicely into the CloD/BoM engine when the Pacific theatre is covered, so not all is lost.

Cheers.

Im still waiting on a response from an email I send some time ago.

Thank you for your encouraging words :)

Inbox still empty... Certainly not me delaying the progress here.

DT are not a monolithic organization. It's just a group of enthusiasts like yourself Zorin, that do this in their free time.

They have family, jobs, and real life issues just like everyone else does, and those take first priority.

Keep checking your inbox.

In my small interactions with them it is my experience that they will get back to you in time.


Cheers.

DT are probably having more than one person look over it. In my experience, the guys at DT may not reply the next day, but they always reply, and with a thorough response. :grin:

Indeed.

I think the process could be streamlined a lot if a certain amount of time would be dedicated to "SDK kits" and pdf guides.

Those could be given to interested parties and would limit the interaction with TD members to a minimum, not taking away any of their precious time to answer cetain questions over and over again.

DT Modelers guide and philosophy v.2012.pdf

:)

my attempt to do it ...

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6620/..._55c3d604_XXXL

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6620/...4_a5ed978_XXXL

not finished and not perfect ....
if interesting, i'll say polycount little bit later

SAB? Soviet flare bomb?

yep

I appreciate your work on Soviet loadouts as they are quite low on my priority list due to limited resources I could gather on them.


Though I have two questions.

1. Was it ten sided in real life?

2. Why do you use a lower tri model for the shadow mesh? That is like using no shadow mesh at all, IMO, total immersion killer.

Shadow meshes are always lower quality.

Flares are small, so a 10-sided shape will still look good, especially with smoothing applied.

certainly not 10 sided in real life ... but is enough for il2 bomb ... that model with all details some over 280 poly already ... close to limit ...


shadow for lod0 is lod01 but painted in black ...
shadow for lod01 is lod02 painted in black to ...
you cannot see shadow from falling bombs closely ... when it falls down .. its goes too fast ... only in slowMo you can watch more detailed and its really immersion killer

I certainly did not expect it to have that many tris with just ten sides.

With regards to the shadows, I obviously meant the shadows that can be seen while the bombs are attached and the plane is on the ground.

tail parh have many detail ...
double sided stabilizer ... and other small things

Ah, I see. Thanks for the extra info :)

you are welcome)

Originally bombs and other ordnance didn't use shadow models at all. They were introduced for ordnance by DT. For a small bombs shadows are definitely not necessary, as they hardly will be ever noticed by player.

Shadow model usually is built from LOD+1 or LOD+2 model. All cavities on the shadow model should be covered with polygons, all internal parts removed.
Shadow model doesn't require any texture, therefore, alpha channel can not be used on shadow models. The material name for it should start with word "shadow". For example, you may have 2 materials: "shadow1" for 1-sided shadow parts and "shadow2" for 2-sided parts. Obviously, the 2-sided shadow should be used only on 0-thickness parts. On ground object shadow models all polygons, which are parallel to the ground and facing towards it, should be removed (as they won't be ever visible).
Building models do not require shadow models. They are generated automatically from building LODs by export tools.

Air to air bombs used by the germans were actually standard AB250 used by some enthusiast pilots. It was not an especific weapon.

That's correct. The Japanese had special air to air bombs, but the Germans used standard bombs with a timed fuze, that were dropped from around 1000 m above a bomber formation. So no new 3D model would be necessary for the German bombs, only a change to the AI by Team Daidalos and maybe some new explosion effects.

Adding a 37mm explosion effect instead would be reasonable, I think. That way, no new effects would have be created.