What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Have a feature request for SRCW? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by number47 »

SGTscuba wrote:I will make the SA2 (rough looking model) on a truck which can then be also used for the bloodhound missile. So don't worry about it Goats (although it will have to wait till my current model is finished).
I would suggest, if you or anyone else decide to make this model to apply the "existing ingame rule". As far as I see, all the towed AA (that have somewhat representable model) are depicted as deployed and ready for combat (like "MIM-23 Hawk" or UK's "Rapier Towed" for example). Not only it will look better when firing on enemy but it will also be easier to model without the truck :lol:
s-75 dvina.jpg
s-75 dvina.jpg (44.21 KiB) Viewed 5666 times
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by MK4 »

number47 wrote: Although I would like every tank to be represented with his own model, due to lack of "resources" (be it time, skilled people, or both)....
Nobody said otherwise.
I focused on the pre '90s period so I figured, if T-64 is made than T-72 could use it's model (the differences are quite minimal although existant and distinctive; funny formulation, I know :lol: ) since ingame T-80 and T-90 models are partialy covered in reactive armour which T-72M and T-72M1 didn't have (only pre '90s variants present in the game).
The ERA of the T-80(only the U and UD versions being present in game btw and at first glance the mesh seems to be based on them) is just part of the texture if I`m not mistaking, whereas the differences between the T-64 and the T-72 would be in the overall model aspect I think and noticeable even when zooming out. The shape of the turret for example and especially that tube at the back of the turret that was part of the deep-wading system(afaik). Of course, none of the two "solutions" is really satisfactory. :D
EDIT: btw, I wonder if just a texture edit on the current T-80 wouldn`t produce something closer to the T-72.
The same reason I suggested it to use T-64 mesh that was also suggested for T-72 :wink:
Yes, and the proper way to do it is to note that the TR-125 should take whatever the T-72 is using, not stick with the T-64. Maybe one day we`ll have proper meshes for both(T-64 and T-72) and someone will give to TR-125 the T-64 mesh based on that note.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by number47 »

MK4 wrote:...
Agreed on all accounts :wink:
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by MK4 »

number47 wrote: I would suggest, if you or anyone else decide to make this model to apply the "existing ingame rule". As far as I see, all the towed AA (that have somewhat representable model) are depicted as deployed and ready for combat (like "MIM-23 Hawk" or UK's "Rapier Towed" for example). Not only it will look better when firing on enemy but it will also be easier to model without the truck :lol:
But in that case the movement stats of the existing unit would have to be changed.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1967
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by SGTscuba »

Some generic ship designs for the early game ships because they look out of place at the moment. Several ships (including gearing) have the Kidd ship model - which has VLS and a heli pad! Maybe just have one with just guns on it.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by number47 »

MK4 wrote:But in that case the movement stats of the existing unit would have to be changed.
HUH Why go into messing with movement stats if we are just changin the 3d model? The model for above mentioned MIM-23 Hawk or Rapier are also a static launcher pod but they have both a movement of 80? I don't see why would we have to do what you are suggesting when originaly developers obviously didn't connect those things together (picture/speed of movement).
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1967
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by SGTscuba »

Since I have decided to take this model on, I am going to tell you now it will be in the launch position rather then the towing position. The Goats will not need to change the unit stats in my opinion, only the model being used.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by MK4 »

number47 wrote: HUH Why go into messing with movement stats if we are just changin the 3d model? The model for above mentioned MIM-23 Hawk or Rapier are also a static launcher pod but they have both a movement of 80? I don't see why would we have to do what you are suggesting when originaly developers obviously didn't connect those things together (picture/speed of movement).
MK4 wrote:I`m not sure how such a thing should translate in SR/CW terms. For example the current movement type for SA-2 Guideline is 1 and that means "Wheel":
http://www.supremewiki.com/index.php/Movement_Types
Something like the MIM-23 Hawk has 4 which means "Towed (Wheel)".
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by number47 »

MK4 wrote:I`m not sure how such a thing should translate in SR/CW terms. For example the current movement type for SA-2 Guideline is 1 and that means "Wheel":
http://www.supremewiki.com/index.php/Movement_Types
Something like the MIM-23 Hawk has 4 which means "Towed (Wheel)".
Not sure about movement types in SRCW but here is the table of ingame stats for few mentioned and unmentioned units so you can observe speed of those units:
aa comparison.JPG
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by MK4 »

I`ve no idea on what the devs based the speed on such cases. Presumably on the known platform/towing vehicle. Anyway, I was actually referring to the movement type. As I`ve said, I don`t know what the difference is in game in this regard(how they`re influenced by various terrain and may upgrades etc.). Basically, the shortest way to find out would be for someone to summon Balthagor and ask how he thinks the weapon should be portrayed in terms of looks and stats. :D

That said, I think it would be better if SGTscuba would make a thread for his work in the modding section so we can discuss such things there.

Also, @number47, do you mind making a new thread(in the modding section) so we can discuss unit stats and versions? You`ve made an interesting point on the M-84 versions and the Degman which is something I wanted to tackle myself(along with other things like the Abrams versions and some MLR systems). And I think it would be best if we had a thread dedicated for such discussions instead of raising them in the unit errata or propose new models threads. It could be consulted by the developers too, but either way, it would be useful modding wise.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by number47 »

MK4 wrote:I`ve no idea on what the devs based the speed on such cases. Presumably on the known platform/towing vehicle. Anyway, I was actually referring to the movement type. As I`ve said, I don`t know what the difference is in game in this regard(how they`re influenced by various terrain and may upgrades etc.). Basically, the shortest way to find out would be for someone to summon Balthagor and ask how he thinks the weapon should be portrayed in terms of looks and stats. :D
O, great Balthagor, although you fare these lands rarely, we summon thee! 8)
MK4 wrote: Also, @number47, do you mind making a new thread(in the modding section) so we can discuss unit stats and versions? You`ve made an interesting point on the M-84 versions and the Degman which is something I wanted to tackle myself(along with other things like the Abrams versions and some MLR systems). And I think it would be best if we had a thread dedicated for such discussions instead of raising them in the unit errata or propose new models threads. It could be consulted by the developers too, but either way, it would be useful modding wise.
Sure, you can start one by yourself since you got the idea :wink:
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20485
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by Balthagor »

It's been about 8 years since I set that data...

Towed stuff is supposed to be slower as it can't be moved as easily. Looks like we made the Hawk/Rapier too fast.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 508
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by dax1 »

I think "Skyguard Aspide" need new mesh

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... uard_1.jpg

Capacity discovery radar 20 Km
N. fire channels 2
N. ready missiles to the launch 12
Time reaction arranges 11 sec
The maximum capacity 10 Km
Minimal capacity 750 m
The maximum quota 3.5 Km approximately
Guidance system homing semiactive
Weight of the missile 220 Kg approximately
maximum speed of the missile 650 m/sec
Con forza ed ardimento
SaudiSerb
Warrant Officer
Posts: 41
Joined: May 03 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Republic of Serbia

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by SaudiSerb »

I THINK
ALL FIGHTER JETS 3,4,5 GEN.
SHOULD HAVE MISSILE VISIBLE JUST MODEL AND FUEL TANKS
THEY WILL LOOKS MUCH BETTER
OF COURSE
HUMMVEE Light Infrantry SHOULD GOT M2 BROWING WHIT SOLDIER IT AND CHANGE IT NAME TO HUMMVEE!

I NEXT FUTURE SHOULD BE GOT TO SEE FOR FIRST TIME RUSSIA AND USA TO GOT
ON THEIR UNITS SOME FLAGS NUMBERS OR ENYTHING ELSE I DONT KNOW IS ANYONE UNDESTAND ME WHAT I WANT TO SAY

Image
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20485
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: What units do you think need/deserve different 3D model?

Post by Balthagor »

Please stop shouting.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRCW”