3D modelling

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 329
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Nerei wrote:
Jan 06 2021
I have decided that chances of there being any issues are probably minor so I am currently assembling Master 4.0. It should hopefully include everything not already available in the base game.

I will also bundle the default.picnums I attached above.
I was thinking about going through my Pic.num file and naming everything this saves me a job well half a job :lol:

Been running the models for a while now seen no issues thanks for the update great work :D
Nerei
General
Posts: 1174
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Arahatree wrote:
Jan 07 2021
Thank you for the explanation Nerei, it's very useful.

I'm sorry that i couldn't answer before, cause of Christmas.

Well, i'll have to decide and think about all this then... my goal is to have as many models as possible in that mod i mentioned, as much variety as possible.
This is just a hobby project so other things taking priority is perfectly okay and understandable. I also at times take a few days off although it regularly is less celebrating holidays and more staying in a dark room trying to get rid of a migraine.

In any case I think there is a few ways to approach this.
For a start there is the option to add more variants of a vehicle. A good example is the Type 74 Nana-yon I posted above. I have made 4 variants but there is only one in-game. In some cases it might also give more representative situations as for the Type 74 the mode currently in service is the E model from the late 1980's and not the initial production model from 1974.

There is also the option of using them with fictive designs. E.g. BG have added the TL series of tanks that are entirely fictive. Using models that are hard to fit in but might be representative of those could be an option.
Depending on how you want to approach this you might also want to add fictive designs to flesh out regions with deficiencies. This however is a subject where opinions are divided.
In any case if you end up using something for a region group where there are not matching colours let me know and I will see if I can make something for them.

Then there is the option of simply adding variety. There might not be a model for a specific design but there might be something slightly closer to its appearance. It might also simply be a case of adding variety despite the new look not being closer to reality.
sparky282 wrote:
Jan 09 2021

I was thinking about going through my Pic.num file and naming everything this saves me a job well half a job :lol:

Been running the models for a while now seen no issues thanks for the update great work :D
Good to know there does not appear to be any issues.

As for the picnums file feel free to do whatever you want with it. I should however still get that darn spreadsheet updated. It includes proper notes, links to information and status of the different models.
number47 wrote:
Jan 06 2021
I used both 1750 and 1782 T-55 models and they both work fine before...never had issue with either of them. Tried them now and still they both work... not sure what the issue ever was as I never experienced crashes due to T-55 model

Also, thanks for the summary of your models, it works great!
I am not sure the converted model 1782 was ever included in the game. The issue only appeared when it was converted to an ascii format model by BG. I don't think I have never seen any issues with the binary format models I have made.
In general there are some issues with these conversions. I remember at one point the Kongō class guided missile destroyer model flat out refused to work post conversion and I have found that particularly submarine UV maps gets broken by the conversion.

If you or anyone else see particularly submarines where there appears to be strange stripes on the hull that is likely this issue. Let me know and I will try and find a version without this issue.



Unrelated to this here is a model of the games second largest firecracker the LGM-25C Titan II.
Image
There might still be some tweaks to do on the upper stage in particular but it is actually surprisingly hard to find decent, high-resolution references for this ICBM (and I am not too keen on using Gemini-Titan).

Also just for the record no I will not stop harping about how subjecting an entire hex to a thermal pulse and shockwave that makes taking the strongest EF-5 Tornado ever recorded mixed with a flamethrower feel like a cool breeze does less than B-36D's dropping a bit over 700 tonnes of bombs.
That is somewhere around 360 tonnes of actual high explosives or in other words around 1/25.000 the explosive force of the Titan II. Naturally that is ignoring that TNT does not scale linearly. TNT equivalent is based on combustion of a gram of TNT so the 9 megaton warhead in the Titan II is notably more destructive than a 9 million tonne pile of TNT.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 329
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Nerei wrote:
Jan 09 2021
Also just for the record no I will not stop harping about how subjecting an entire hex to a thermal pulse and shockwave that makes taking the strongest EF-5 Tornado ever recorded mixed with a flamethrower feel like a cool breeze does less than B-36D's dropping a bit over 700 tonnes of bombs.
That is somewhere around 360 tonnes of actual high explosives or in other words around 1/25.000 the explosive force of the Titan II. Naturally that is ignoring that TNT does not scale linearly. TNT equivalent is based on combustion of a gram of TNT so the 9 megaton warhead in the Titan II is notably more destructive than a 9 million tonne pile of TNT.
I fixed this by increasing the rating of most nukes just a bit to 10000, 15000, or 20000 surprised it was even possible 20000 destroys almost anything in that hex

If only the AI used a few nukes as well.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1174
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Yes the AI need to be better at using nuclear weapons. In general nuclear weapons needs to be more effective. Having MAD as a serious risk in particularly cold war would be thematic and might make uncontrolled expansion more risky.

I did a bit of math a long time ago and got like 25000 fort, 12000 soft and 4000 hard attack for the LGM-25C Titan II. Mind you that is with the absolutely pathetic 10kt freefall nuclear bomb as a reference.
Naturally if it was less pathetic and actually an upgrade to a B-36D auto-attacking the Titan II would similarly be stronger.

Another model I used gave Khrushchevs 100 megaton bomb a fort attack of just a tiny bit over a million.
Again that is based on the 10kt bomb.
Sounds like a lot but then again I suspect there is going to be very little left within a radius of 8km when you detonate a 100 megaton thermonuclear weapon. In a ground detonation the fireball alone basically vaporizes the entire hex.
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 574
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by evildari »

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... 0,5,1&zm=9

game has 3 major issues using nukes:

1.total annoying white flash per one detonated nuke
2. computer player does not do first strikes (not counting some weird nuke strikes vs the worldmarket at location 0,0 by the ai)
only retaliation (even if it has zero nukes - message pop ups)
3. damage is similar to normal combat damage:
a) there are no widespread disrupting effects
b) no area denial (remember command HQ which got radiated areas where units could even die from radiaton attrition effects)
c) no public health / population growth / death(rates) issues - at least not noticeable

on the topic: very nice model (again) Nerei!
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1174
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Unless BG adds multi-hex attacks a 100 megaton airburst is really not optimal usage of the weapon. Buttoned up armoured vehicles like MBT's in particular will probably resist this detonation surprisingly well.
Do a ground detonation instead and vaporize the entire hex with a 15-16km wide 100 million kelvin fireball.
Used right this bomb would basically have more or less infinite in all stats as the fireball vaporizes everything that is not a super hardened bunker complex like say Cheyenne mountain. For that however it just needs to detonate like 1km from it and the tremors will make the facility collapse.

For the record this was a planned weapon. The Proton launch vehicle was originally intended as a super-heavy ICBM designed to deliver a non-nerfed AN-602 Tzar Bomba with a yield of 100 megaton of TNT. The AN-602 replaced the uranium tamper with one made of lead reducing the yield significantly but reducing fallout (probably also in part as the reduced yield resulted in the fireball not reaching the ground).
So yes it is entirely possible to argue this weapon "should" be in the game. Improved ICBM guidance however rendered this weapon largely obsolete before it was completed. MIRV likewise makes such colossal bombs less desirable.
Really the Tzar bomba and Proton ICBM was the ultimate expression of what the early ICBM's was all about (that is throwing a huge bomb roughly in the direction of the enemy).


Nuclear weapons is probably not the ideal ionizing radiation based area denial weapon. Large thermonuclear weapons really needs to be used suboptimal for them to do this. Typical detonation altitudes means the fireball does not touch the ground which keeps fallout lower. Likewise the gamma ray pulse is probably not going to be intense enough at ground level to do this.

Smaller weapons will produce significant radiation but with those you need a lot just to block a single hex and even then you probably need to reapply them regularly as most nasty elements are somewhat short-lived.


For area denial with nuclear weapons I would say targeting key infrastructure is probably a better usage of limited assets. Lets say the USSR wanted to prevent the US from reinforcing Europe during a fictive world war 3. Nuking Esbjerg, Cuxhaven, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven and Emden, would make it hard for the US to disembark forces closer than say Amsterdam (my assumption is the Weser is not suitable for this kind of ship movement so no nukes for Bremen). Add Amsterdam as well as Rotterdam to the list and the US might have to use French ports to land enough forces to make a difference.

That said from what I remember one strategy the USSR considered in such a war was basically a rolling bombardment of NATO forces with nuclear weapons in front of the advancing Red Army. The estimate there was that the front-line units would be incapacitated within 6-8 weeks due to radiation poisoning. This however is with the front-line troops regularly getting a new dose of ionizing radiation.

But yes particularly with smaller weapons radiation is relevant. With weapons like Little Boy any area that gets a decent hit with the overpressure shockwave or thermal pulse also gets a nasty dosage of ionizing radiation. For armoured targets in particular it will be the main killer.

In general nuclear weapons should probably affect healthcare. Even if the large thermonuclear weapons does not irradiate people like small ones there will still be a huge number of injured people requiring healthcare and many will probably be invalids for life. There is also burns which large thermonuclear weapons does really, really well.


The damage from nuclear weapons are in many cases not even comparable to normal attacks. It can be far, far worse. If you want to bust a NBC protected vehicle like a M1A2 Abrams you are probably better off trying with some odd world war 2 aircraft like a Sturmovik or Typhoon (not the Eurofighter) than dropping a nuclear weapon on it. According to George Geczy NBC protection reduces attack by 80% for tactical and 90% for strategic nuclear weapons.
That means the best you can get in hard attack for nuclear weapons is 242 for tactical and 180 for strategic nuclear weapons. That is not hard to find. A single B2 Spirit can do that. That is one aircraft not one 12 aircraft unit.

Basically a 25 megaton weapon will hit a NBC protected hard target at around 1/16 the strength of a B-2 Spirit unit. For soft targets it is 1/7.


Also I agree the white flash can be annoying. The game needs an epilepsy mode.
Likewise the AI needs to be better at using them. Nuclear weapons are really the life ensurance of the average tinpot dictator against much stronger enemies (case in point the DPRK). For them using it as a first strike both against enemy infrastructure and military targets really should be possible.


I am actually writing down a proper breakdown of what nuclear weapons does as well as some suggestions as I really am annoyed at how the game represents nuclear weapons hence my firecracker references.
Problem is I keep adding and changing things so I am now at around 5 pages so far and I am not done yet.


Okay this got quite long so to stick a bit with the topic here is an incomplete SM-65D Atlas ICBM. This was the first operational US ICBM and the launch platform that brought John Glenn into space.
Image
It does however carry a mk.3 re-entry vehicle and not the mk.2 carried on the first versions that entered active service.
This is a tiny weapon compared to what the Proton ICBM would have been. Still it is around 100 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.

And to complain a bit as a strategic nuclear weapon this ICBM is about as effective as 1-2 B-52 strategic bombers against NBC protected targets (again 1-2 aircraft not 1-2 12 aircraft units)
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”