3D modelling

[Nerei]

The T-90MS is more or less done. I might add some dirt but other than that it should largely be it.


There is still some work left on the Leclerc but it should definitely be ready for July 1st.

[MK4]

Awesome!

Not that I`m requesting/suggesting anything, but fyi there are only 7 tanks remaining in vanilla (excluding the fictional designs and the ww2 ones) that you haven`t covered already and for some of them you actually have different versions made:

unit id - texture name - probable tank
52 - MERKAVTX.dds - Merkava IV
53 - M1A1TXT.dds - M1A1
120 - ATANKTX.dds - PT-76
153 - LAVMGSTX.dds - Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System
156 - CHALLENT.dds - Challenger 2
165 - AMX13TX.dds - AMX-13
197 - VCC80TX.dds - VCC-80 Dardo IFV

By "tank" I mean those graphics that have the vanilla tank desert camouflage.

[Nerei]

Everyone is free to make suggestions. The main reason I have made the changes I have is not to avoid suggestions but have a better way to actually get some of them done and not have them pile up for a year or more. Not that I can cover everything but at least I can cover some of it. So really suggestions are welcome.

As for the models I have already considered the Merkava IV (and possibly the original 1970's version) and AMX-13 (if possible with SS.11 ATGM).
I was considering making a Type 63 amphibious tank but it is basically the PRC not being entirely happy with the PT-76 and making their own modified variant. Making a type 60 instead is definitely an option as it is just a variant of the PT-76.
The Challenger II is also something I have considered to do at some point but it is not high priority right now.

The M1A1 would be fairly easy to do as I already got nearly all the work done with the M1A2 TUSK II. Just strip it off the ERA and change the MG shields and it should work fairly well. I am fairly sure I actually made the TUSK II variant to allow for easy removal of that upgrade.

I was considering doing the Centauro or AMX-10 at some point but I can do a Stryker MGS instead.

I have actually never really looked at the Dardo.

[MK4]

Just to clarify, I`d rather you put your effort into making new stuff than redoing the old ones. I have made a list with what each vanilla model represents years ago so I can more easily update unit graphics in game and it just occurred to me as I was implementing your newest graphics into the game that you`ve covered many of the existing tanks. The reason this sorta matters is that I`m not really a fan of the desert camouflage for every tank in the world and since you`ve made your generic version green (much more to my liking) I think the more of these tanks you cover the better. As I`ve said though, there`re more important things to do overall.

On a different topic, I`ve just read this and I have to say it really sucks!
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 49#p180049
I`m obviously going to be stuck with the map, graphics and more importantly AI limitations of the old engine (SR2020-SRCW). I still had 2 cents worth of hope and that`s gone. Anyway...

[Nerei]

I mainly just make what I feel like making. Sometimes I cover something already in the game but for the most part I do that if I think I can still achieve something. E.g. I know there is already an AH-64D in the game but the version I made better support camouflage patterns.
I am not that much a fan of the desert camouflage either although my motivation is as much that I am not the worlds greatest fan of texture seams. I have considered making desert camouflage versions of quite a few of the vehicles but that would mainly be so the Middle East countries does not use dark green vehicles but that is not really related to this.

I have considered an alternative to extensively redoing existing vehicles was to make some alternatives. E.g. for Britain instead of making a Challenger instead make a Chieftain.

Yes I saw Balthagors reply. I kinda suspected this would be the case when they announced in the 9.1.12 patch notes that the game would use Steam matchmaking for multiplayer. I know it is not realistic to have them make multiple multiplayer systems but personally I could accept no multiplayer at all as I do not really use it anyway.
I would be happy with just getting the Mac version outside of steam as it does not have multiplayer anyway likely due to it running in a wine bottle. Hopefully we could get that version both with and without the wine bottle on say GOG. I would not mind paying full price for that.

[MK4]

Could you please give me a bit more help in my attempt to implement the F-15s separately? It just occurred to me that the texture is loaded based on the name that was saved by the model and I can`t change that myself.

Basically I need the F-15E model (1836) to be saved two more times with texture names for Korea and Israel. For example:
F-15I_tx.dds
F-15K_tx.dds

[Nerei]

I had some problems with the AscII .x exporter other than it producing 500Kb or larger files. Basically it tended to not export properly, destroying up the mesh or uv map if it even worked properly. Had I used that one though you could go to the end of the file and just edit the path.
Anyway here is a quick export of the F-15 with those texture names. It should work but I have only tested it in a model viewer.
F-15I
F-15K

[MK4]

Thank you very much!

What unit did you make the Generic Stealth Fighter (1659) for?

[Nerei]

1659 is mainly just made to add more variety to the near-future selection of fighter aircraft. It is not really based much on any real world aircraft nor is it intended to represent any current projects (I would be surprised if my time playing Ace Combat has not influenced it quite a bit but it is not based on any aircraft in those games either). It is largely the same reason I made 1675 and 1676 only those are to add variety to CATOBAR super carriers and missile battleships respectively.
I am considering doing more of these types of units simply to add more variety to near future scenarios though they are not my main priority.

[MK4]

Thanks! I figured the rationale, but I was just wondering if you meant the graphics for any specific already existing unit (vanilla unit).

Speaking of which, while I`m - slowly - implementing your new graphics I`ve noticed that in vanilla there seem to be two entries for the Type 73:
416 J-73 - infantry unit
3389 J-73-79 - anti-tank unit
Based on the graphics assigned to them in vanilla and the movement type (tracked) I`m guessing they are actually meant to represent the Type 73 APC, not the Type 73 Light Truck. So I have two questions:
1. Is there a unit in vanilla representing the Type 73 Light Truck that you know of?
2. What are your thoughts regarding the need to make graphics for an AT version of the Type 73 APC? Is there even such a thing in real life? I`m guessing that the 79 from the name refers to the Type 79 Jyu-MAT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_79_Jyu-MAT
but wikipedia lists it available for the Type 73 Light Truck, not the APC.

Similarly, is there a unit in vanilla that represents the Kawasaki P-1?

[Nerei]

The Type 73 Shīn is mainly intended to serve as a generic light unit. It could be an engineer or recon unit. Again as much to add variety as anything. It could in theory also be an ATGM carrying jeep type unit though the model itself does not look like it.

I actually do not know of any cases of the Type 79 Jyu-MAT being mounted on any type 73 APC's. I suspect it certainly would be possible but I just do not know of any cases of it happening. The launcher is too large to just be carried internally so I would assume there should be some reference somewhere.
I do however know it has been used quite extensively on the type 73 light truck as have the later Type 87 Chu-MAT.

http://jp-swat.com/img/pic/report/jsdf/20100516/900.jpg

It has also been used to field the Type 64 MAT ATGM. The only tracked APC in the JSDF that I know that have carried ATGM is the Type 60 APC that also used the Type 64 MAT.

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/type6 ... mat_04.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 4_ATGM.jpg

The Type 89 IFV is also using the Type 79 Jyu-MAT which again gives an idea of the size of the weapon.

The Type 73 light truck together with the later Komatsu LAV is really the main ATGM platforms of the JGSDF (other than helicopters that is). The latest version the Type 01 LMAT is small enough that it from what I understand is generally just kept as a man-portable AGTM launcher inside the vehicle.

Personally I would assume it is an error on BG's part that the type 73 ATGM is a tracked APC type vehicle. I know the Kyū variant of the type 73 has even been fitted with a 106mm recoilless rifle.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ss_gun.jpg


Making a version of the Type 73 Shīn that carries a type 79 Jyu-MAT will take some time as it will mean rebuilding a good part of the model. I can however reuse common parts of the model and texture map so it is not comparable to building a new model.
However adding a couple of Type 64 MAT launchers to the back of the Type 60 APC would be easy and the model certainly supports it as there is plenty of space on the texture map. It is also only 736 tris.

The type 60 APC can also mount a Type 79 Jyu-MAT without any problems as again there is plenty of space on the texture map. I might also build a type 73 APC at some point and I can certainly then mount some ATGM launcher on it. I do however not think these would be that historically accurate but then again some of the constructs I have made are not entirely realistic anyway.

I could also make version of the LAV that has an ATGM launcher mounted on it but for 2020 it would generally be inaccurate as the main ATGM launcher would be the Type 01 LMAT that would not really need a mount to be launched.


As for the Kawasaki P-1 Ultimate at least has a unit called "MPA-1" or something along those lines. Now I cannot remember having heard the P-1 being specifically referred to as that but it has been called MPX and given that it appears to be an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (my guess is the MPA is short for that) built by Japan it certainly appears to be a fitting representative.


Also a few quick renderings of some models.
First off An-124 in a Russian, generic and a fictive PRC variant

And the AMX-56 Leclerc.

Making more variants of the Leclerc is not a very high priority.

[MK4]

Personally I would assume it is an error on BG's part that the type 73 ATGM is a tracked APC type vehicle.

I`m leaning towards the same conclusion. Someone probably just mixed up the designations.

Making a version of the Type 73 Shin that carries a type 79 Jyu-MAT will take some time as it will mean rebuilding a good part of the model. I can however reuse common parts of the model and texture map so it is not comparable to building a new model.

Ok, I did not realize that. I was thinking it`s more of a plug and play. If it`s that difficult we can just live with what we have now.

Btw, if you ever get to make another versatile APC (like a Boxer, a Patria AMV, a Piranha III/V etc.) would it help significantly with other versions if you leave room in the texture from the beginning for potential AT or mortar weapons?

Also, if you ever make the CV90 (please do!) maybe it`s best to make the point now that it has a demonstrator (for a light tank) called CV90120-T:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/cv90120t.htm
which is the bases for the Polish PL-01:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pl_01.htm
They`re very interesting concepts (I`d build them in game ). I`m mentioning it in case it might help to plan for such a thing when you make the CV90. If you`re interesting in it too of course.

As for the Kawasaki P-1 Ultimate at least has a unit called "MPA-1" or something along those lines. Now I cannot remember having heard the P-1 being specifically referred to as that but it has been called MPX and given that it appears to be an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (my guess is the MPA is short for that) built by Japan it certainly appears to be a fitting representative.

Good point. Considering that the unit database was largely made around the time (or before) the P-1`s first flight it`s probably a case of a unit for which many of the details were lacking and had to be guessed.

Making more variants of the Leclerc is not a very high priority.

I don`t see why other variants would be necessary. I love how it turned out btw! I may be subjective, but I think it`s one of your best units yet.

[Nerei]

Yes I suspect it is down to the naming Japan uses for vehicles. Another case is a type 87 can be both a light armoured recon vehicle or a SPAAG and a type 60 can be an APC and Tank destroyer.

As for the type 73 to some extend it is swapping parts. Problem is I need to make the new parts first. I am considering making an open version that supports a HMG, a recoilless rifle and ATGM. It would not be entirely accurate as only the Kyū and not the Shīn variant have been used for all these roles but I suspect few people would notice the difference and it is easier than making a completely new unit.

The issue with textures is really down to if the model needs regional textures or not. I do not know the exact nature of how the game handles regional textures but I assume it just uses the regional texture instead of the one the model uses by default.

It is not so much about leaving free space as it is about being able to get free space for new elements. Say I make a Patria AMV with a 120mm AMOS mortar. Turning off the AMOS turret texture in photoshop would be fairly easy and would free up space for adding say a DLS MCT-30 turret instead. If I created an IFV version with no space for either the AMOS or MCT-30 I would have a far harder time fitting them onto the model.
It is naturally also an option to leave space for both but it means less space for each part and empty space on each model. It means less if I just swap small parts like a HMG for an ATGM launcher but large pieces like turrets will have a greater effect.

[MK4]

With the modern JSDF more or less done I have decided to try and clear up a few requests before I really start working on the two Chinas and Koreas so for a start here is my plan for the next set of models.

Marder IFV

About the Marder. We actually have this in vanilla. It`s 172 in the UGBITS (UNIT172.X with the texture called MARDERTX.png). Of course you may want to make one yourself, but I thought to point it out in case you`ve missed it.

EDIT:

I`d like to make a case for the Stryker APC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm

For one thing there are more than 4000 of it made so it would be right if it had its own graphics. More importantly though, in vanilla we only have two western wheeled APCs: the 6x6 VAB and the 8x8 LAV. The LAV has a turret and overall doesn`t look like many of the APCs that use a remote weapons station so in lack of something else we could use the Stryker to represent all of these. For example:

Boxer:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/boxer_mrav.htm

Piranha III
http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag ... a_IIIc.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag ... a_IIIh.htm

Piranha IV
http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag_piranha_iv.htm

Piranha V
http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag ... images.htm

Patria AMV (excluding the Rosomak and Badger derivatives):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

[MK4]

I have a question. What textures do these units use?

1800 USS Nimitz
1801 USS Gerald R. Ford
1810 USS Maryland SSBN-738
1812 USS Virginia SSN 774
1814 USS Cheyenne SSN 773

I have a fear it`s one of those two 8mb size files with everything in them.