3D modelling

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

No you misunderstand the cobwebs is not something that will be noticeable in-game. Basically texture filtering is Maya applying different versions of anti-aliasing to the textures.
Okay if the game does similar forms of anti-aliasing I guess it could but it is not something related to the texture as such.

compare these two renderings. The only difference is the first has a texture filter and the second does not.
Image
Image

Also according to a friend what I really run on is a mixture of tea and noodles as well as strange Playstation games and weird tv shows.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I have decided to rebuild the JMSDF vessels into a single large texture with all future vessels going into this single texture. This will take a bit of time as I will basically be copying the existing texture maps into the new one while turning off duplicate elements and then remapping all the vessels to this new map. Most of the last part will just be applying a rescale and moving the UV's around the new map. So far I do not plan on doing it with the original 15 or so Nippon Kaigun vessels I initially released as their texture maps are not exactly amazing all things considered being recycled from another project and basically if I ever do anything serious with them I will probably remake them model and all to break the 900 tris limit as it was quite hard fitting some of them under that.

In the meantime here is a couple of incomplete models going from never completed to "you have watched way too much anime". Both are very much work in progress.
Image
Image
The first one is a fairly middle of the road near 1300 tris. The battleship however is by far the highest tris model so far approaching 2500.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

Nerei wrote:I have decided to rebuild the JMSDF vessels into a single large texture with all future vessels going into this single texture. This will take a bit of time as I will basically be copying the existing texture maps into the new one while turning off duplicate elements and then remapping all the vessels to this new map. Most of the last part will just be applying a rescale and moving the UV's around the new map.
The thing is this reminds of an onion news piece:
At the end of the night, viewers will be saying, ‘How did they do that? And why?’”
:-)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Really it is a way for me to get work done faster with a gradually decreasing space requirement on the texture map as more content I can reuse is added. The 8th vessel added to the map (the JS Atago) only adds an increase of about half the size of a regular 512x512 texture map. The disc space required for the texture map is also smaller (as a .png, I have yet to test as a .dds).

Another important reason for me is that I have far, far more freedom in terms of texture dimensions. I can use a 600x275 pixel space for a texture now without the issues this can lead to. I do not know how this engine handles texture sizes but some engines (from what I remember Unity being one) does not like thextures that do not have dimensions that are derived from 2^n. A 600x275 texture map would be scaled to 1024x512 with all the increased memory requirements and potential distortions such a rescale would result in.


It is also a way for me to more easily use prefabricated elements as they all have a unique set of coordinates on the UV map. The ASROC battery, Phalanx CIWS, Harpoon canisters, 76mm Oto Melara etc are all used on multiple vessels and can just be copy-pasted from one model to another now with nearly no work required.

So really it as a way for me to make my life easier. From an end user perspective it does not mean much except maybe a slightly slower initial texture load time as it is a quite large texture that has to be added to be loaded. With my initial test cube I did however not notice much and my desktop computer is not exactly the fastest anymore.

edit: for the record I have never read any articles from the onion. To me onions is vegetables you eat ^_^
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

It seemed like alot of trouble for no discernible benefit, but if you say it`s easier this way you`re in the best position to know that. What actually worries me is that - if I understood you correctly - you`re changing the texture format from vanilla. Maybe you should ask someone from BG about this. It might appear fine at first sight, but could actually have side effects in certain conditions. As you`ve said, I know games that would act pretty badly if the texture was not in the 126x126, 256x256, 512x512 range.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I have managed to make the game load a large texture before. That black and red cube I posted a few pages back was to test how the game would handle a 4096x4096 pixel texture .
I would try and make a new test but it turns out the plugin I was using to write .x files is not happy with Sierra. I guess it is time to look for a new one but there are not that many to choose from. The alternative is to try and figure out how to do the exporting in blender...

edit: I decided to give blender a try. Getting it to create a relative path was problematic (well for someone that has never used blender before at least) but it apparently accepts the one it gets from Maya in a .fbx just fine so that is a solution. Also it compiles as an ASCII file.
I am currently trying to see if I can get Atago into the game using this method.
edit2: it works fairly well.
Image
Yes it is not a finished model, far from it actually but it works and with a 4K texture.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I have had a few issues with Photoshop more or less since the last MacOS update. The solution is simple enough just upgrade to CC. Problem is I really do not want to throw more money at Adobe considering how much a full license for Photoshop was back when I bought it.

I will probably spend a few more days messing around with this. I am even considering swapping to using GIMP. I have never really used it though which is somewhat of a barrier.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I have sorted most of my photoshop related problems out so everything should be fine again.

Also I have decided almost solely to focus on 2020 for now so most units not being suitable for that on the original list are delayed (unless they are more or less done naturally). A few units like the JS Atago however will make it instead.
I am still not going to give any absolute date for next update but I hope to have it sometime in May. However I cannot stress enough that ultimately release is "when it is ready".

Finally I would like some feedback on making models of the Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga and Zumwalt. Is there any point to making new versions of these given that they already exist? Making ships takes a fairly long time no matter what but these are the main ocean going surface warships of the largest navy in the world so they are fairly important.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

Nerei wrote: Also I have decided almost solely to focus on 2020 for now so most units not being suitable for that on the original list are delayed (unless they are more or less done naturally).
I consider it a good decision. It`s hard to be all over the place and modern war is what SR was originally all about. For me that`s the most interesting part of the game.
Finally I would like some feedback on making models of the Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga and Zumwalt. Is there any point to making new versions of these given that they already exist? Making ships takes a fairly long time no matter what but these are the main ocean going surface warships of the largest navy in the world so they are fairly important.
I won`t advocate outright canceling such projects, but personally I`d give ships lower priority unless they cover some design that fills a niche in terms of generic aspect and even then I`d not make them top of the list. I don`t know how good SR has managed this in recent releases, but back in the days of SR2020 naval warfare was somewhat embarrassing with all the AI ships getting stuck out of fuel. For the foreseeable future I would personally prefer you do a Rafale (for example) instead of a Ticonderoga as my understanding is aircraft take you much less time and effort and I think it would get used more in game.

Speaking of aircraft let me show you a pretty colorful scheme for the Sukhoi Su 30, in Ugandan markings:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Uganda-A ... B0bV9m0DCj
In its various versions, the Su-30 is also in service with China which I mention because I know you`re interesting in giving the far eastern nations more distinctive graphics.
I was thinking that maybe, sometimes in the future when you have completed your list of priorities, you`ll consider adding a few more diversity to the modern Sukhoi line. I think it would be nice to be able to distinguish between a Su-27 (which we have in the game albeit all grey) and a Su-30 and a Su-34 since they have rather different capabilities and roles. Plus, they`re used by so many countries nowadays and they have such striking colour schemes. The SU-34:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... Mwyg%3D%3D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... Mwyg%3D%3D
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I tend to agree that modern warfare is more interesting. That is not to say the Great war period cannot be interesting and there definitely is the potential to make interesting strategic gameplay (one of my favourite naval warfare games "Rule the Waves" is set in the 1900-1925 period). However I got a nagging feeling that with the current engine we will overall be left with less options. A Gotha bomber or Zeppelin does not exactly pack the same punch on the battlefield as a B-2 or Tu-160 nor does a mk. V tank really offer the same tactical options that a M1 or T-72 does. Aircraft carriers are also basically non-existant and missiles entirely so.

I personally think there is a great potential for hypothetical scenarios for the near future and with a bit of luck if we see a map editor it would be possible to have scenarios/campaign like a 2020 Korean war, Taiwan strait conflict or escalating Ukraine border conflict. One of my favourite parts of games like Air/naval combat is the hypothetical scenarios.
I really like Cdiplayers idea with "Triumph of the Kaiser" but at the same time it highlights how much work building such things with a text editor is. I am not saying I would jump into creating a new korean war scenario as I am really better at graphics but I definitely would not mind contributing to any such projects.
Also hopefully things like a map editor would allow more people to mod the games. Right now there is less than 10 people releasing mod content.


Anyway I was not intending to include the Arleigh Burke or the others in next update. It was mainly a question for the next update again or even later. For the US navy the priority right now is the Gerald R. Ford, Nimitz and the Spruance.
My still incomplete Strike Cruiser will probably also make it as I want to have a proper nuclear powered alternative to the Arleigh Burkes for the US navy.
The America class LHA might also make it but that is less certain.
The modern US Submarines will naturally make it as they are basically done.

As a whole there will probably be around 20-25 warships in the next update including around 10 submarines and 5 aircraft carrier style vessels. In total there will probably be around 70 assuming I stick to my current plan. Yes the majority is Japanese designs or license builds.
Also I am throwing in an entirely fictional VLS equipped Aegis battleship because reasons. This one is also by far the most detailed model so far with a tris count of roughly 2400 but it carries more than 30 weapon systems so I guess that there is no way around it. I suspect there will be fewer of those than say tanks so I am willing to push those a bit further.

As with pretty much everything I am not going to make any promises on the Su-30/33/34. However yes the Su-30 is decently high on the list of aircraft I want to make for the PRC. The Su-33 might also happen as it was offered for sale to both India and the PRC and while both sales never happened the Shenyang J-15 is according to some also based on the Su-33 and might visually be similar enough that the same model can serve as both. I will have to do some comparisons on this.
I have never really looked at the Su-34 but I agree some of the colour schemes are interesting.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

I think we`re getting closer to the point where a map editor is the difference between playing the game or not. The limitations from vanilla (which the devs obviously have no time for) and natural inability to keep up with future world events can only make the game playable so many times.
Anyway I was not intending to include the Arleigh Burke or the others in next update. It was mainly a question for the next update again or even later.
Yes, I understood that. If it involves so much work I think it`s best if you do simpler graphics for air or land instead. Or even take the time off for yourself. :-)
As with pretty much everything I am not going to make any promises on the Su-30/33/34.
I realize that. I was only putting forward the idea.
However yes the Su-30 is decently high on the list of aircraft I want to make for the PRC.
That would be great. One thing though. If you get into the Su-30 you should know that the Indian version is based on a different platform and looks somewhat different. From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
KnAAPO manufactures the Su-30MKK and the Su-30MK2, which were designed for and sold to China, and later Indonesia, Uganda, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Due to KnAAPO's involvement from the early stages of developing Su-35, these are basically a two-seat version of the mid-1990s Su-35. The Chinese chose an older but lighter radar so the canards could be omitted in return for increased payload. It is a fighter with both air supremacy and attack capabilities, generally similar to the U.S. F-15E.[6]

Irkut traditionally served the Soviet Air Defense and, in the early years of Flanker development, was given the responsibility of manufacturing the Su-27UB, the two-seat trainer version. When India showed interests in the Su-30, Irkut offered the multirole Su-30MKI, which originated as the Su-27UB modified with avionics appropriate for fighters. Along with its ground-attack capabilities, the series adds features for the air-superiority role, such as canards, thrust-vectoring, and a long-range phased-array radar. Its derivatives include the Su-30MKM, MKA, and SM for Malaysia, Algeria, and Russia, respectively. The Russian Air Force operates several Su-30s and has ordered the Su-30SM version.
The Su-33 might also happen as it was offered for sale to both India and the PRC and while both sales never happened the Shenyang J-15 is according to some also based on the Su-33 and might visually be similar enough that the same model can serve as both. I will have to do some comparisons on this.
That`s my understanding too. I have not studied the subject, but given the level of graphics detail from SR you might get away with any actual differences.
I have never really looked at the Su-34 but I agree some of the colour schemes are interesting.
Personally I would actually start with the Su-34 as a need to visually differentiate inside the modern Sukhoi family. First of all, it is actually a tactical bomber:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
Secondly, because it has the two seats side-by-side
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... ExJA%3D%3D
it has that Platypus look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Su-34_nose.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... Za1x/7Li4X
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... Za1x/7Li4X
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Yes a map editor will make quite a difference I think. Sure it is just a GUI onto a text document but those tend to make things so much easier for people not only to learn it but also to do things even when you know what you are doing. I really appreciate that BG offers as much modding options as they do but going through text documents and manually changing values is something very few people actually want to do.

This is about 1/6 of what a few drag selections on a UV map looks like in Maya. I can type this sure but even if I know all the values I need is (which would be a bit like knowing all hex coordinates) this would just take eons compared to what it takes with a GUI. A map editor with a proper GUI is pretty much the same story.
select -r polySurface132.map[0:3] polySurface132.map[192:196] polySurface132.map[199] polySurface132.map[201] polySurface132.map[203:205] polySurface132.map[214:221] polySurface132.map[223:227] polySurface132.map[229:231] polySurface132.map[269] polySurface132.map[277] polySurface132.map[286:287] polySurface132.map[312] polySurface132.map[331:332] polySurface132.map[384] polySurface132.map[387] polySurface132.map[389] polySurface132.map[391] polySurface132.map[393:394] polySurface132.map[396] polySurface132.map[398] polySurface132.map[400] polySurface132.map[403:404] polySurface132.map[407] polySurface132.map[412:415] polySurface132.map[425:436] polySurface132.map[438] polySurface132.map[448:449] polySurface132.map[451] polySurface132.map[666:679] polySurface132.map[682:695] polySurface132.map[702:705] polySurface132.map[722] polySurface132.map[724:726] polySurface132.map[745:749] polySurface132.map[751:752] polySurface132.map[754:763] polySurface132.map[766] polySurface132.map[818:821] polySurface132.map[845:848] polySurface132.map[857:860] polySurface132.map[863:876] polySurface132.map[880] polySurface132.map[896:899] polySurface132.map[912:914] polySurface132.map[916:929] polySurface132.map[931] ;
updateAnimLayerEditor("AnimLayerTab");
if (!`exists polyNormalSizeMenuUpdate`) {eval "source buildDisplayMenu";} polyNormalSizeMenuUpdate;
dR_updateCounter; dR_updateSymButton;
undoInfo -swf false; textureWindowCreateToolBar_isUVTransformed; undoInfo -swf true;
autoUpdateAttrEd;
listHistory -pdo true -lf false -il 2 "polyTweakUV6";
// Result: polyTweakUV6 polyMapCut8 polyMapCut7 polyMapCut6 polyTweak3 polyTweakUV5 polyMapCut5 polyTweakUV4 polyMapCut4 polyMapCut3 polyTweak2 polyTweakUV3 polyMapCut2 polyMapCut1 polyTweakUV2 polyMapSew2 polyMapSew1 polyTweak1 polyTweakUV1 polyMergeVert1 //
listHistory -pdo true -lf false -il 2 -f true "polyTweakUV6";
// Result: polyTweakUV6 //
setUITemplate -pst attributeEditorTemplate;
// Result: attributeEditorTemplate //
setUITemplate -ppt;
// Result: NONE //
I honestly think the best thing BG can do is upload whatever they have and just let people mess around with it. They can always update it later as time and resources permit. It might not be the most user-friendly but it all but has to be significantly better than doing it in a text editor.
That and some more releases on GOG.
Yes I can see the irony in me saying they should release the editor incomplete instead of making a perfect tool while I am basically doing the same with 3D models. At least I am still not following a Republic at War release schedule.



I mainly say that I will not promise anything as it is generally not something I can do right away and there is a thousand things that can get in the way. Simple time constraints being a good candidate. As a whole there is very few models I definitely will not make but probably quite a few I will never get around to due to time constraints.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/The_Fre ... 1.gif.html
This crazy ship is a good example of something I will not touch. It is not that it is fictive (I have a few fictive models myself) but just that it is just plain stupid.
I am not touching things like the P-1000/P-1500 Landkreuzers either.
As for ships I will probably focus mostly on the PLAN, ROCN, ROKN and JMSDF before I move onto other navies. The KPN will probably be covered fairly well if I make enough content for the PLAN


If the main difference between the PRC and indian versions of the Su-30 is just candards then it should be fairly easy to solve the problem of visual differences.
Make the Canard version but make the model so removing the canards does not result in holes (this might also cut the tris count lower so it might be worth it anyway).
Depending on how much effort I put into differentiating them they can then either use the exact same textures or they can have the same base texture but different camouflage patterns. Given that these planes are fairly flat (the entire top of the fuselage with wings attached can be mapped as a single shell) making camouflage patterns should not be too hard.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

If the main difference between the PRC and indian versions of the Su-30 is just candards then it should be fairly easy to solve the problem of visual differences.
There are other minute differences plus some more obvious like the tail fins:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/inde ... nt=1131913
but then again, you`re not going for scale modelling here and the in game visuals can only show so much details so I think the canards would be the thing that most casual aircraft fans would notice and be happy with. The indian paintjob (if you want to make one) is also pretty basic so you wouldn`t waste much time if you make the one for China in the same texture format.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Sorry I have not been much around. The last days have been somewhat busy.

The tail fin can probably be handled with a a bit of stretching and maybe some texturing. That should not be a problem. The SU-34 is a bit too different but the rest should be possible to cover from a base model with just tweaks.

Also here is most of my JMSDF vessels with a few other designs included (naturally not all texturing is done)
Image
There is a few vessels still to cover such as the Ōsumi class and I am redoing my Asahi. I also have still to decide if Hatsuyuki makes it. It probably will as there are plans to transfer 4 of them to the JCG. Also the Philippine navy might get some of these or the newly surplus Shriane DDH's (okay probably only Kurama if they actually do test the ASM-3 on Shirane).
Ayanami being retired a long time ago is less important so it might end up being delayed and I might also delay vehicles such as the Type 60 recoilles to speed up next update a bit.

As for the fictive designs the battleship is my take on converting a World War II battleship into a 21st century Aegis equipped guided missile battleship (I specifically did not pick the Iowas as if I want to cover those it is going to be in their last true configuration and not a fictive one).
The carrier is my attempt at something large that is not a US carrier though deck layout does resemble the Gerald R. Ford. It is mostly based on concepts I have seen for the PLAN Type 002 or material from Japanese media.
I am also borrowing a bit from the superstructures from Dokdo, Hyūga and Izumo. The armament though is decidedly western being made up of Phalanx and SeaRAM on top of a decent number of VLS cells.
Personally I suspect the Type 002 will more closely resemble 001 and 001A designs so this should mainly be considered a "what if the JMSDF or RoKN decided to build a super carrier". A proper Type 001 (Liaoning) and possibly also a type 002 will likely happen once I get around to the PRC.

Finally a quick question. Would anyone be willing to help with the creation of PICNUMS entries? I am mostly asking as this is still something that takes time and unlike actually building the models it is something I can outsource.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

Nerei wrote: Finally a quick question. Would anyone be willing to help with the creation of PICNUMS entries? I am mostly asking as this is still something that takes time and unlike actually building the models it is something I can outsource.
What would that involve? Posing the skinned models in a 3D graphics software?
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”