Ordnance Updates

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

Noted.

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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

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

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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.

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?