BGForums

BattleGoat Studios
It is currently Jul 27 2017

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous 124 25 26 27 28 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 10 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
Alright. Some notes:
- generally the different colours camo that some factions have does help (by comparison to the generic green paintjob), but not completely
- for round turrets you could do that thing with the shadow underneath protruding, but I`m not sure what to do with elongated turrets of the tanks (since in the newest versions of the game the turret may turn and the "shadow" would not follow this movement)
- I`m not sure how guns could be made more visible. Would making them a tad darker be a solution that`s not too disruptive?

The list:
Type 89 AFV - both turret and gun are very hard to observe; at first sight you`re under the impression it`s a flat top APC.
K1A1 - again both turret and gun need something to make them easier to distinguish
Type 90 tank - the same
T-55 - the turret blends graphically at the front mostly (gun is ok)
Type 99 SPG - would help if the gun was a bit more visible (it`s longer than the hull which helps, but the hull largely masks it in its area)
Type 10 tank - the turret at the front could be made a bit more distinguishable (I hope :-) )
Type 87 SPAAG - the guns tend to disappear when they do not protrude from the hull; also, less importantly it would help if the very front of the turret could be marked more visibly.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 11 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
Finally got the Tu-16 more or less as I want it. This aircraft actually took quite a bit of time but I would say it is quite an improvement over what I originally had.
Image
The Generic aircraft is basically an Egyptian Airforce Tu-16 without markings. I thought it would be more interesting that generic boring grey.

I have tried adjusting the textures for the Type 89 and Type 10 to make the turret and barrel more visible. Despite the Type 10 having an elongated box turret I have still tried to create fake shadows on the chassis and lower part of the turret.
The majority of the time the turret is not rotated and with the lower part of the turret adding to the shadow effect it should generally be okay. Also the main part of the shadow is confined to the area that is always under or near the edge of the turret.
I also made the turret lighter (except for the barrel of the type 10 that I found stand out more when darker rather than lighter) to better make them stand out from these fake shadows while the chassis on the Type 10 (and possibly also the Type 89 I do not remember) is slightly darker.
Type 89 Japanese texture
Type 89 Generic Texture
Type 10 Japanese Texture
Type 10 Generic Texture
Let me know if this is an improvement or not as I have not really done any significant testing of them. The Tu-16 took most of my time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 11 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
I think the work has payed off in terms of good looks for the Tu-16. I normally wouldn`t care about this plane, but I find it quite attractive now. :-) Impressive work, really! Good call on the generic texture too!

Quote:
I have tried adjusting the textures for the Type 89 and Type 10 to make the turret and barrel more visible.


The generic texture of the Type 10 is the unedited one I`m afraid. The Japanese camo texture is indeed adjusted and I think in the right amount. Subtle enough, but it makes a difference. That said, the main issues with visibility tends to be with the generic one colour textures so I`ll await for that before giving a final opinion.

I think the modifications on the Type 89 are definitely an improvement. I`m just not sure the frontal shadow needs to be this wide, but this is small stuff. Overall, I can finally distinguish with ease the shape of everything that`s above the hull.


Attachments:
beforeandafter2.jpg
beforeandafter2.jpg [ 27.21 KiB | Viewed 186 times ]
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 11 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
I am certain it is the right one. I most definitely have not replaced the old one with that was indeed an un-altered one with the correct file ^_-

It should be the right one now. I just replaced the file so the old link should be fine.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 11 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
Yep, it looks great now. These small shadow plus lighting tricks clearly make a big difference.

Btw, just to be sure I don`t need to recheck something else too: the only link you`ve updated is that for the generic texture of the Type 10, right?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 11 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
Yes nothing else have been changed. I will try and gradually retouch some of the older textures.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 13 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
@Nerei is there a NATF in vanilla or have you identified any unit that could be it?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 13 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
Well the NATF is intended to represent a naval version of the F-22 Raptor. For a short period of time the US Navy considered getting a carrier based version of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) but it was cancelled early on. I am fairly certain the NATF is not represented in any way but really any large (e.g. larger than the F-35C) advanced stealth fighter intended for carrier operation could be covered by this aircraft. I have considered doing a few more fictive regional variants for it such as British, French and Japanese.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 14 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
Alright. Speaking of aircraft, what`s your opinion on how multirole fighters are currently represented in SR? There was supposed to be a "refit to" function, but this was never implemented. I`ve written a post long ago that attracted one reply and also Balthagor`s usual answer (not the one with the ticket, but the one with the won`t be done). In my game I ended up merging values in multirole fighters like detailed in that post. I`m curious what solution you`d go for.
viewtopic.php?p=154297#p154297


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 14 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
A refit mechanic could probably also be adapted to offer the option of refitting say AH-64D to E standard or rebuilding warships. I would really like such a mechanic. Together with better AI and diplomacy it is probably my top 3 most wished for feature.
That and say a few more aircraft carrier deck types would not hurt either. Some UI improvements are probably also worth a bit.

As for multirole aircraft I would say merge them. I find it somewhat annoying that I have to decide if my F-16 carries bombs or anti-air missiles when I build it. It also means less clutter.
Smaller nations in say 2020 are probably also going to need all their aircraft to be able to do all roles even if not as well as a dedicated interceptor or ground attack aircraft.

Having the ability to switch would naturally be best (ideally probably something like anti-air, ground attack or mixed) but excluding that I consider merging them the best option. The stats can always be set to represent the aircraft using some hardpoints for anti-air and some for ground attack weapons (or different loadouts for for different aircraft given the size of the units).


I have only had limited time to work on it but here is a still incomplete SU-34. Generic version will probably just be grey. It is not the most amazing colour but completely omitting it should not be something to strive for either.
Image
I will also give it some tiling and a cloud overlay like on the J-20 to help break up the solid surfaces.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 14 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
Thank you! You`ve made me feel better about my choice.

Why the refit option would be such a problem to implement though...

Quote:
I have only had limited time to work on it but here is a still incomplete SU-34.

I think you`ve nailed it! Can`t wait to see it with the cockpit in place, but it`s already a very beautiful plane.

Quote:
Generic version will probably just be grey. It is not the most amazing colour but completely omitting it should not be something to strive for either.

Removing the russian markings would probably suffice for the generic version.

It might not be the most imaginative colour scheme, but it is very recognizable and this will be of great value in game. I definitely like it.

Quote:
I will also give it some tiling and a cloud overlay like on the J-20 to help break up the solid surfaces.

For breaking the monotony you could represent those few small panels that are different colour on its back:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 803%29.jpg
and this area on the right side of the cockpit (where the gun is located) which is metal (Steel/Silver is usually mentioned in modelling guides):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... hpWb5Kei5b
Other Sukhois have it too.

Btw, the SR Sukhoi line is kinda messy. We have two Su-34, one Su-35 and one SU-30:
9252 Su-30 Flanker
11118 Su-34 Fullback
11133 Su-34 Super Flanker
11121 Su-35 Super Flanker

There are several problems with them I think. The Su-30 is defined as a Fighter/Interceptor when it actually is the multirole of the line. The Su-33 Flanker btw is defined as a multirole in game, but in reality it`s an air superiority fighter that can only drop dumb bombs (not smart munitions). The Su-34 is also intended more as a bomber than a multirole as represented in SR so I think it would be worth reviewing the stats of all of these. I don`t see why we should have two Su-34 variants and especially I have no idea what the Su-34 Super Flanker represents, but I think we ought to have two Su-30 and possibly two Su-35. As discussed above in this thread, the Su-30 evolved from two basic platforms and the Su-35 of the 1990s is not the same with the current Su-35S. I think I`m gonna turn the Su-34 Super Flanker into the Su-35S in my game. Just saying...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 14 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
Changing the base colour is not really hard as long as I do not have to paint any complex camouflage patterns and it will make the Russian version stand out more. Had there been other nations using it I might have picked their style for it as I am starting to find it to be an interesting idea for handling generic planes without them just being identical to national variants without markings or grey.

As for what is the best way to represent Russian aircraft I really do not know. My knowledge is mainly about East Asian militaries although I have picked up a bit while doing these models.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 16 2017 
Offline
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2016
Posts: 5
Human: Yes
Location: X:382 Y:221
Awesome job on the models.

Two things:
One, would you think about making a Stryker model? Currently the Stryker uses the LAV model and its a bit jarring.
Image

If it helps, the Stryker's unit ID is 611. Though it could also apply to 1440, 3542, 3569, and 4930.

Secondly, and sorry if I've missed it, what modeling and texturing programs do you use/would you recommend?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 17 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Oct 08 2011
Posts: 380
Human: Yes
I`ve actually proposed the Stryker on pretty much the same grounds:
viewtopic.php?p=180110#p180110
For what it`s worth I`ll support it being introduced on next month`s short list of requests.

Also, Nerei, please hold a spot for the Su-27 for next month.

@Nerei, a bit off topic, but since you`re putting so much effort into the world`s navies, how`s SRU in terms of AI using ships? In SR2020 it was a disaster! The USA wrecked its army while invading Cuba (failing that is) and all the seas were littered with stranded vessels out of supply. From what I`ve read they "fixed" the last issue in SRCW by automatically "scrapping" vessels that got stranded. Did it get any better than this with subsequent releases?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: 3D modelling
PostPosted: Jul 17 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 357
Human: Yes
Bleh I think is the technical term that best describes the navy AI. It is pretty easy to beat but honestly that is the AI in general. It does stupid things and cannot create task forces but compared to Paradox I do not really consider it worse.
To be fair though the only games I remember where I found the navy AI decent to good is Rules the Waves (though that is tactical battles) and I think the Command series and War in the pacific - Admirals Edition (been a long time since I played those though so my memory is not the best).
I really just make ships because I like making ship models. In some cases I completely base my choices on looks. I mean one of my main reasons for having made quite a few Japanese world war 2 warships is simply that I generally prefer the way they appear to their western counterparts.


I kinda wish BG would go open source with the AI. I know not many people would look at it but it would not take many skilled people really digging into it to get a result. Modders may not be the most reliable workforce but they can put a number of hours into something that traditional professionals could only dream about.


The Stryker ICV is one of the units I am considering making. Technically I want to do the Stryker MGS and then convert that to the ICV.


I use Maya and Photoshop to create these models. The programs are nice and ignoring price I do recommend them. The price however is quite steep.
Autodesk does have their student and trial versions though.
A cheaper alternative would be blender and GIMP. I have not used either much but I know people that really like them. Other than Autodesk student/trial versions those are probably the best place to start. Both Blender and GIMP has a large community so tutorials are fairly plentiful and there are people that can answer questions. For creating SR models they should also work just fine as they have .x and .dds plugins respectively.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous 124 25 26 27 28 Next

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited