Ordnance Updates

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Juri_JS

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.

[Lagarto]

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).

[1984]

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?

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by 1984

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.

[Zorin]

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

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Here is some feedback for you from one of DT modellers

I made a quick rework of Zorin's torpedo (only one variant). You may send it back to Zorin for study, if you think, it would be useful.

Errors and problems, found in his model:

1. Model orientation in Max was wrong. The model should be placed in max so it's nose points downwards on the Max Top view. The CG of the object should be placed at 0,0,0 coordinate.
2. Texture size was too large (1024x1024) while the texture itself was not quite detailed. No point in using large texture, if one doesn't plan to paint anything on it.
3. Texture mapping wasn't quite good and savvy. Too many stitches in UW makes painting details on texture difficult.
4. Thin parts, like fins, should be made, using 2-sided material, their shape can be easily "cut" from a simple rectangle, using alpha channel.
5. No LODs found in the file.
6. No collision object found in the file. Ordnance doesn't need mesh collision, it is enough to use collision sphere which is just default Max primitive, 32 sides sphere, whose diameter is slightly larger, then ordnance diameter without fins. The CSphere object should be placed at the 0,0,0 coordinate.
7. TGA file should be used as texture.

I did a brief remodel of one of the torpedo variants, fixing all the above listed problems. The texture was reduced to 512x512 pixels, but still has a huge portion of unused space. I take it, that Zorin planned to use it for other Japanese ordnance models. I added some small details on the image, to make it look more realistic. There is also space reserved for another torp (fin, actually) variants, should Zorin would want to remodel his torpedoes according to the included sample. I also think, there is no need in such large number of different variants. 2, maximum 3 would suffice.

Here's a comparison image:



As you can see, the tri-count of the model was reduced by half and the texture made smaller 4 times without any loss to visual quality.

We will send you the reworked model asap...

[Zorin]

1. Model orientation in Max was wrong. The model should be placed in max so it's nose points downwards on the Max Top view. The CG of the object should be placed at 0,0,0 coordinate.

How am I supposed to know that?

2. Texture size was too large (1024x1024) while the texture itself was not quite detailed. No point in using large texture, if one doesn't plan to paint anything on it.

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...

3. Texture mapping wasn't quite good and savvy. Too many stitches in UW makes painting details on texture difficult.

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...

4. Thin parts, like fins, should be made, using 2-sided material, their shape can be easily "cut" from a simple rectangle, using alpha channel.

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.

5. No LODs found in the file.

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...

6. No collision object found in the file. Ordnance doesn't need mesh collision, it is enough to use collision sphere which is just default Max primitive, 32 sides sphere, whose diameter is slightly larger, then ordnance diameter without fins. The CSphere object should be placed at the 0,0,0 coordinate.

See point 1 and 5.

7. TGA file should be used as texture.

Noted.

I did a brief remodel of one of the torpedo variants ... without any loss to visual quality

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.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

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.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

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?

[MicroWave]

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